Paul's Koinonia with the Philippians: A Socio-Historical Investigation of a Pauline Economic Partnership (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161534881, 9783161535031, 3161534883

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) · Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

377

Julien M. Ogereau

Paul’s Koinonia with the Philippians A Socio-Historical Investigation of a Pauline Economic Partnership

Mohr Siebeck

Julien M. Ogereau, born 1981; 2010 BTh (Hons 1) in New Testament Studies at the Sydney College of Divinity (Sydney, Australia); 2014 PhD in Ancient History at Macquarie University (Sydney, Australia); currently Research Assistant with the Exzellenzcluster Topoi at HumboldtUniversität zu Berlin, Germany, and Honorary Associate at Macquarie University.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-153503-1 ISBN 978-3-16-153488-1 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2014 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

τῇ Ἰωάννᾳ Μιρᾷ προστάτιδι καὶ παρακλήτριᾳ συµβία κοινωνῇ µου τῶν τε χαρίτων καὶ τῶν µόχθων

Preface This book would have never been written if, in my undergraduate years, I had not come across the work of E. A. Judge. My encounter with Judge, both in print and in person, radically transformed the way I approach, read, and understand the New Testament and its social world, and ultimately reoriented my academic path. It led me to the department of Ancient History at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, where the doctoral dissertation on which this book is based was completed in October 2013. This thesis was written with the secret ambition that Judge might one day cast favourable eyes upon it. It is my sincere hope that he will, and that the discipulus will have been found worthy of his much admired magister. Many others have of course contributed to the timely completion of this project. First and foremost, I am indebted to L. L. Welborn for his expert supervision. This book owes much to his intellectual acumen, scholarly rigour, literary finesse, and creativity. The faculty and friends of the department of Ancient History at Macquarie University have also been a constant source of support and inspiration. I am particularly thankful to A. Nobbs, S. Piggin, P. Keegan, C. Forbes, D. Barker, J. R. Harrison, J. T. Fitzgerald, all the members of the New Testament and Early Christianity postgraduate seminar, as well as my parents. I am also grateful to my former teachers and (then) colleagues at Alphacrucis college, and in particular to S. Fogarty, J. Grey, S. Clifton, D. Parker, M. Hutchinson, P. Oslington, J. Dowton, and A. White, for their encouragement throughout my undergraduate and postgraduate years. This research has been facilitated by several grants from Macquarie University, the Society for the Study of Early Christianity at Macquarie University, and Tyndale House, Cambridge. Credit is especially due to I. Petersson and M. Lattke who provided the funds for my research leave at Tyndale House in January 2013. Thanks are also due to J. and D. Bröcker who kindly hosted me during my stay in Münster, Germany, in August 2012, as well as to The Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens and to l’École Française d’Athènes for allowing me to use their premises and resources during my stay in the Greek capital in April 2011. Finally, I would like to thank H. Ziebritzki and J. Frey for accepting with enthusiasm this dissertation for publication in the WUNT II series, as

viii

Preface

well as S. Schüz and I. König for their help with the final preparation of the manuscript. Last but not least, I would like to express my appreciation to my examiners, J. M. G. Barclay, J. S. Kloppenborg, and A. H. Cadwallader, for their critical but gracious engagement with the thesis and for their many helpful suggestions. This book is dedicated to the one who has paid the dearest price of all to make this work possible. Berlin, August 2014

Julien M. Ogereau

Table of Contents Preface .................................................................................................. vii Abbreviations ..................................................................................... xiii Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................... 1 1.1 The Vexed Question of the Funding of Paul’s Mission ........................ 1 1.2 History of Research on Paul’s Economic Partnerships ....................... 15 1.2.1 Paul’s société de fait (J. Fleury) ............................................... 16 1.2.2 Paul’s societas Christi (J. P. Sampley) ..................................... 21 1.2.3 Paul’s Paradigm of Social Reciprocity (G. W. Peterman)......... 28 1.2.4 Recent Treatises on Paul’s Financial Policy ............................. 40 1.3 Scope, Significance, and Structure of the Present Study .................... 42

Part One: Philological Survey Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations ................................... 53 2.1 Brief Overview of New Testament Philology .................................... 53 2.2 Value of Deissmann’s Methodological Approach .............................. 59 2.3 Methodological Procedure................................................................. 63

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology in the Light of Documentary Sources ........................................................................ 68 3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 68 3.2 Substantives ...................................................................................... 68 3.2.1 τὸ δόµα .................................................................................... 68 a) Papyrological Evidence ....................................................... 71 b) Epigraphic Evidence............................................................ 73 c) Summary ............................................................................. 74 3.2.2 ὁ καρπός ................................................................................... 75 3.2.3 ὁ λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως ..................................................... 78

x

Table of Contents

a) Documentary Evidence for ὁ λόγος ...................................... 79 b) Documentary Evidence for ἡ λῆ(µ)ψις ................................. 82 c) Documentary Evidence for ἡ δόσις ....................................... 84 d) Literary and Documentary Evidence for the Collocation ὁ λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως .................................................. 93 e) The Significance of the Phrase εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως ............................................................................ 101 3.3 Verbs .............................................................................................. 104 3.3.1 ἀπέχω .................................................................................... 104 a) Papyrological Evidence ..................................................... 106 b) Epigraphic Evidence.......................................................... 110 c) Summary ........................................................................... 112 3.3.2 πληρόω................................................................................... 112 a) Papyrological Evidence ..................................................... 113 b) Epigraphic Evidence.......................................................... 117 c) Summary ........................................................................... 118 3.4 Summary ......................................................................................... 119

Chapter 4: History of Research on Κοινωνία and its Cognates ................................................................................ 120 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 120 4.2 Philologically-Oriented Studies ....................................................... 121 4.2.1 Κοινωνία and its Cognates in the New Testament (J. Y. Campbell) .................................................................... 121 4.2.2 Der Begriff Κοινωνία im Neuen Testament (H. Seesemann) .... 125 4.2.3 Koinoonia en gemeenschap van zaken (P. J. T. Endenburg) ... 130 4.2.4 Koinonein und Metechein (N. Baumert) ................................. 136 4.3 Theologically-Oriented Studies ....................................................... 144 4.4 Summary ......................................................................................... 149

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία Cognates in Documentary Sources ........... 151 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 151 5.2 Κοινωνία and its Cognates in Inscriptions ........................................ 152 5.2.1 Κοινωνέω................................................................................ 152 5.2.2 Κοινωνός ................................................................................ 157 5.2.3 Κοινωνία ................................................................................ 169 5.3 Κοινωνία and its Cognates in Papyri ................................................ 183 5.3.1 Κοινωνέω................................................................................ 183 5.3.2 Κοινωνός ................................................................................ 188 5.3.3 Κοινωνία ................................................................................ 198

Table of Contents

xi

5.4 Additional Examples of Κοινωνία as Partnership in Literary Sources ........................................................................ .209 5.5 Summary ......................................................................................... 215

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis Chapter 6: Preliminary Questions ................................................. 223 6.1 The Question of the Literary Unity of Philippians ........................... 223 6.2 The Question of the Genre of Philippians ........................................ 234

Chapter 7: A Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians ............. 244 7.1 Introduction: Purpose, Occasion, and Theme(s) of Philippians ........ 244 7.2 Paul’s Gratitude for the Philippians’ κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (1:3–11)............................................................... 246 7.2.1 Form and Function of Paul’s Opening Thanksgivings ............ 246 7.2.2 Structure and Significance of 1:3–4 ....................................... 247 7.2.3 Structure and Significance of 1:5 ........................................... 251 7.2.4 Connotation of κοινωνία (εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) in 1:5 ................. 252 7.2.5 The Philippians as Paul’s συγκοινωνοὶ τῆς χάριτος (1:7) ......... 260 7.2.6 Concluding Remarks on Paul’s Ultimate Concern for the προκοπὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (1:12) ................................... 264 7.2.7 Summary ............................................................................... 265 7.3 Paul’s Acknowledgement of the Philippians’ Contribution (4:10–20) ................................................................... 265 7.3.1 Introduction ........................................................................... 265 7.3.2 Paul’s Restored Joy (4:10–14) ............................................... 266 7.3.3 The Significance of the Phrase εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως (4:15) ................................................................ 270 a) Selective History of Interpretation ..................................... 271 b) Paul’s Missionary Fund with the Philippians ...................... 280 c) Summary ........................................................................... 289 7.3.4 Additional Insights into Paul’s Κοινωνία with the Philippians (4:16–17) .............................................. 290 7.3.5 Paul’s Formal Acknowledgement of the Philippians’ Contribution (4:18) ............................................................... 301 7.4 The Significance of Paul’s Economic Discourse.............................. 308

xii

Table of Contents

Chapter 8: A Socio-Economic Analysis of Paul’s Κοινωνία with the Philippians ......................................................................... 310 8.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 310 8.2 Κοινωνία as the Interpretive Crux of Paul’s Relationship with the Philippians ........................................................................ 311 8.3 On the Use, Significance, and Diffusion of Roman Legal Sources ................................................................. 316 8.4 Anatomy of Graeco-Roman Partnerships (Κοινωνία/Societas).......... 326 8.4.1 The Assimilation of Κοινωνία with Societas ........................... 326 8.4.2 Origins and Basic Characteristics of Roman Societas ............ 329 8.5 A History of Paul’s Κοινωνία with the Philippians ........................... 338

Chapter 9: Conclusion ..................................................................... 348 Appendix ............................................................................................ 351 Appendix A: Κοινων- Cognates in Inscriptions ...................................... 353 A.1 Κοινωνέω .................................................................................. 353 A.2 Κοινωνός .................................................................................. 367 A.3 Κοινωνία .................................................................................. 377 Appendix B: Κοινων- Cognates in Papyri .............................................. 391 B.1 Κοινωνέω .................................................................................. 391 B.2 Κοινωνός ................................................................................... 402 B.3 Κοινωνία ................................................................................... 461 Bibliography ......................................................................................... 501 Index of Ancient Sources ...................................................................... 563 Index of Modern Authors ...................................................................... 585 Index of Subjects .................................................................................. 589

Abbreviations Primary and secondary sources common to the field of biblical studies have been abbreviated according to The SBL Handbook of Style (eds. P. H. Alexander et al.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), and, when unavailable therein, according to The Oxford Classical Dictionary (eds. S. Hornblower and A. J. S. Spawforth; 3rd and rev. ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), or according to A Greek-English Lexicon (eds. H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie; 9th ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996). Papyrological sources follow the Checklist of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets (eds. J. F. Oates et al.; Online: http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/ papyrus/texts/ clist.html). Epigraphic sources have been referenced according to the list found in G. H. R. Horsley and J. A. Lee, “A Preliminary Checklist of Abbreviations of Greek Epigraphic Volumes,” Epigraphica 56 (1994): 129–69. For Latin inscriptions and other Greek inscriptions not referenced in Horsley and Lee’s checklist, see F. Bérard et al., Guide de l’épigraphiste: Bibliographie choisie des épigraphies antiques et médiévales (3rd ed.; Paris: Presses de l’École normale supérieure, 2000). For all other abbreviations which are referenced neither in Horsley and Lee’s checklist nor in the Guide de l’épigraphiste, see the list below: Agora 16 Bresson, Recueil EKM1.Beroia Herrmann-Malay, Lydia IJO 2 IK Heraclea Pont. IKosSegre IKosSegre (EF) ILeukopetra IMontan INomima IPArk ITyana Labarre, Lesbos McCabe Kaunos McCabe Theangela Mon.fun.Palmyre IF Mon.fun.Palmyre IFC Rigsby, Asylia Ross, IG SGO 1 SGO 2

Woodhead, Inscriptions: The Decrees Bresson, Recueil des inscriptions Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos, Epigraphes Beroias Herrmann and Malay, New Documents from Lydia Ameling, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis Jonnes, Inscriptions of Heraclea Pontica Segre, Iscrizioni di Cos (1993) Segre, Iscrizioni di Cos (2007) Petsas et al., Inscriptions de Leukopétra Tabbernee, Montanist Inscriptions Van Effenterre and Ruzé, Nomima Thür and Taeuber, Prozessrechtliche Inschriften Berges and Nollé, Tyana Labarre, Les cités de Lesbos McCabe, Kaunos Inscriptions McCabe, Theangela Inscriptions Gawlikowski, Monuments funéraires de Palmyre IF Gawlikowski, Monuments funéraires de Palmyre IFC Rigsby, Asylia: Territorial Inviolability Ross, Inscriptiones Graecae ineditae Merkelbach and Stauber, Steinepigramme Osten 1 Merkelbach and Stauber, Steinepigramme Osten 2

xiv

Abbreviations

Abbreviations of periodicals and major reference works follow those of The SBL Handbook of Style, and if unavailable, those of L’Année philo-logique. For all others see below: ACSS ArchMiss Berger, EDRL BNP Chantraine, DELG Deissmann, LAE Deissmann, BS DGE EDNT Ephemepi Exp 8th FilNT JEBH Lewis-Short LGRE LTT-A OJRS OJLS OED OLD Preisigke, WB PW[1] PW[2] Sherk, RDGE Smith, DGRA SupJSJ Tischendorf, NTG Wettstein, NTG WfKlPh ZA ZVR

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia Archives des missions scientifiques et littéraires Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law Brill’s New Pauly Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East Deissmann, Bible Studies Diccionario Griego-Español Horst and Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Ephemeris epigraphica The Expositor, 8th Series Filologia Neotestamentaria Journal of Economic and Business History Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt Library of Latin Texts – Series A Ohio Journal of Religious Studies Oxford Journal of Legal Studies The Oxford English Dictionary Oxford Latin Dictionary Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden Wissowa et al., Paulys Realencyclopädie, Erste Reihe: A–Q Wissowa et al., Paulys Realencyclopädie, Zweite Reihe: R–Z Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum Wochenschrift für klassische Philologie Ziva Antika Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft

Chapter 1

Introduction 1.1 The Vexed Question of the Funding of Paul’s Mission1 Towards the end of his letter to the Romans, the apostle Paul made a remarkable assertion. He claimed that he had preached the gospel from Jerusalem all the way to Illyricum, so that there was no more room left for him to work in these regions (Rom 15:19, 23). However exaggerated one may find this statement to be,2 the geographical breadth of Paul’s mission remains staggering. It spanned from the confines of Palestine, Syria, and Arabia to the eastern border of the European continent: Macedonia, Greece and the modern-day region of the Balkans (Illyricum). In between these two extremities lay the Roman provinces of Asia, Galatia, Cilicia, Bithynia, in which, Paul boasted, he had fulfilled the ministry that Christ had entrusted to him (Rom 15:19), according to a specifically-delineated κανών 1

The term mission, which derives from the Latin noun missio (which is semantically equivalent to ἀποστολή), has of course come to mean different things to different people. We use it in a general sense to refer to Paul’s evangelistic activities in Palestine, Greece, and Asia Minor, regions to which, as a self-proclaimed apostle, Paul thought himself (com)missioned, i.e., sent out (ἀποστελλόµενος), to preach the gospel. For a cautionary discussion on the use of modern missionary categories, see John T. Townsend, “Missionary Journeys in Acts and European Missionary Societies,” AThR 68 (1986): 99–104. For a brief overview of the use and significance of the term mission in western Christian history, see Charles Van Engen, “Essay 1: ‘Mission’ Defined and Described,” in Global Mission Issues in the Third Millenium (eds. D. J. Hesselgrave and E. Stetzer; Nashville: B. & H. Academic, 2010), 7–29. 2 Paul’s role in the expansion of early Christianity may have been over-estimated at times. This is partly due to the preponderant place he and his letters assume in Acts and in later tradition. However, Harnack is probably correct to affirm that the “chief credit for the spread of Christianity is due to those who were not regular apostles, and also to the ‘teachers’.” Indeed, the “most numerous and successful missionaries of the Christian religion were not regular teachers but Christians themselves.” Adolf Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (trans. J. Moffatt; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961), 352, 366. Cf. Rodney Stark, Cities of God: The Real Story of How Christianity Became an Urban Movement and Conquered Rome (New York: HarperCollins, 2006), 133–36; Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission: Paul and the Early Church (vol. 2; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 923.

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

(2 Cor 10:15).3 As one can easily imagine, this impressive achievement was not accomplished overnight and without the help of others. Paul’s mission lasted a good decade, necessitated three long and perilous journeys (according to Acts), and involved several equally dedicated associates (Mark, Timothy, Silas, Priscilla and Aquila, Phoebe, etc.).4 The logistics of it all must have been rather complex, while the amount of human and economic resources it required must have been quite substantial. Yet, against all odds, the Pauline mission, as much as the Christian movement in general, enjoyed relative success, perhaps more than anyone had expected. This naturally raises a number of questions, one of which concerns the strategy Paul employed to meet the economic needs of his mission. Traditionally, scholarship has emphasised Paul’s self-sufficiency in his missionary work and his apparent reluctance to have anything to do with money, thereby denying him any intentional and strategic planning in raising financial support. C. H. Dodd, for instance, considered Paul “a well-todo bourgeois” who could not bring himself to ask for, let alone accept, money.5 F. W. Beare deemed that financial dependence was always a great source of embarrassment to the apostle.6 Similarly, “on the basis of a text like 2 Corinthians 11:8–9,” B. Witherington III concluded, without much regard for the obvious rhetorical tone of the passage, that “Paul was never fully comfortable accepting such gifts” (from the Macedonians, here).7 As regards the Philippians’ show of support, D. Peterlin likewise opined that Paul “gratefully acknowledge[d] the Philippians’ gift,” but only “with a considerable degree of unease (4:10–20).”8 For “there was something about the Philippians’ gift that was troubling to the apostle,” G. F. Hawthorne suggested.9 Indeed, “the whole matter of giving and receiving was a touchy 3

On the likely sense of κανών as the geographically partitioned sphere of service and mission in 2 Cor 10:15, see Judge, NewDocs 1, 36–45, #9. 4 Schnabel numbered thirty-eight of them. Schnabel, Mission, 1425–45. Cf. Earle E. Ellis, “Paul and his Co-workers,” NTS 17 (1970): 437–52. 5 C. H. Dodd, New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967), 72. 6 F. W. Beare, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959), 151–52. 7 Ben Witherington III, Friendship and Finances in Philippi: The Letter of Paul to the Philippians (Valley Forge: Trinity International, 1994), 127. Cf. Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 270. 8 Davorin Peterlin, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the light of Disunity in the Church (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 226. Peterlin’s explanation is not straightforward. Rather than appealing to Paul’s scruples vis-à-vis money, he posited that Paul was in fact apprehensive of the reaction of some of his detractors in the church who might have perceived his acceptance of the Philippians’ gift as a plea for more (see pp. 209–13). 9 Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians (WBC 43; Waco: Word Books, 1983), 18–19.

Chapter 1: Introduction

3

subject.”10 M. Hengel was equally sceptical that Paul could have ever requested material support: Paul himself had no possessions. During his missionary journeys he earned his keep by hard manual labour as a tentmaker (Acts 18.3). He did not ask the communities to look after him (1 Cor. 9), but accepted support offered freely with gratitude (Phil. 2.25ff; 4.15ff.). Accustomed to extreme need, he was glad when he was sufficiently cared for (Phil. 4. 11ff.). 11

H. Weinel and G. A. Deissmann, who conceived of Paul as “the first artisan missionary,” would have probably approved of Hengel’s comment.12 R. F. Hock, likewise, might have concurred, as he concluded his portrait of Paul as the working apostle by observing: Paul’s trade also provided him with his principal means of livelihood, though never with enough to make him anything but a poor man and sometimes not even with that much, so that hunger and thirst and cold were at times his lot.13

Despite criticising certain aspects of Hock’s work, T. D. Still would come to a similar conclusion: Taken together, these passages [1 Thess 2:9; 1 Cor 4:12, 9:6; 2 Cor 11:27] suggest that Paul supported himself in the midst of his ministry by plying a trade. Even if he occasionally received material assistance from given congregations and persons (note 2 Cor 11:9; Phil 4:15–16; Rom 16:1–2, 23), it was Paul’s stated missionary policy and practice to be fiscally independent (see esp. 1 Cor 9:12, 15, 18).14 10 Hawthorne, Philippians (1983), 18–19. Cf. Fred B. Craddock, Philippians (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 194. Others who share a similar view include Collange, Buchanan, or Alexander. Jean-François Collange, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians (trans. A. W. Heathcote; London: Epworth Press, 1979), 8; Colin O. Buchanan, “Epaphroditus’ Sickness and the Letter to the Philippians,” EvQ 36 (1964): 161– 62; Loveday Alexander, “Hellenistic Letter-Forms and the Structure of Philippians,” JSNT 37 (1989): 97. 11 Martin Hengel, Property and Riches in the Early Church (London: SCM, 1974), 36 (emphasis added). 12 Gustav A. Deissmann, Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957), 237: “What he needed he earned by his own work as journeyman tent-maker. He was the first artisan missionary, and was proud of his independence … Only from those who were very near to him did he, making an exception to his rule, receive charitable gifts.” Cf. Heinrich Weinel, St. Paul, the Man and His Work (trans. G. A. Bienemann; London: Williams and Norgate, 1906), 178, 351; Dachollom C. Datiri, “Finances in the Pauline Churches: A Socio-Exegetical Study of the Funding of Paul’s Mission and the Financial Administration of his Congregation” (Ph.D. diss., University of Sheffield, 1996), 188–210. 13 Ronald F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 67 (emphasis added). 14 Note the two important terms policy and practice. Todd D. Still, “Did Paul Loathe Manual Labor? Revisiting the Work of Ronald F. Hock on the Apostle’s Tentmaking and Social Class,” JBL 125.4 (2006): 782 (emphasis added).

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

These opinions appear to be legitimate insofar as Paul himself indicates several times in his letters that he had resolved to work his own trade in order to supply to his needs.15 For instance, he exhorted the Thessalonians to remember how he and his colleagues toiled night and day as they proclaimed the gospel,16 so as not to become a burden to anyone (1 Thess 2:7– 9).17 When challenged by the Corinthians, he reminded them of his arduous labour for their own sake (1 Cor 4:12, 9:6; 2 Cor 11:27), words which the author of Acts would also put in his mouth in his farewell speech to the Ephesian elders at Miletus (Acts 20:34–35).18 In a way, as some have argued somewhat anachronistically, 19 it would seem that Paul complied with the traditional Jewish ethos, whereby a rabbi, if he had not inherited the family fortune, provided for his own subsistence by working a trade (cf. m. Abot 2:2), since receiving money for teaching the Torah was deemed inap-

15 For similar views, see for instance Gerald W. Peterman, Paul’s Gift from Philippi: Conventions of Gift-exchange and Christian Giving (SNTSMS 92; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 7–9; Peter Oakes, Philippians: From People to Letter (SNTSMS 110; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 68–69. 16 On the idiomatic use of the expression νυκτὸς καὶ ἡµέρας in papyri, see Andreas Bammer, “An Approach to the Papyrological Understanding of Paul’s Laboring ‘Night and Day’ (1Thess. 2.9),” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 2007 (ed. T. Gagos; Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Library, 2010), 47–52. 17 On the contextual connotation of βάρος here and in Gal 6:2 (cf. καταβαρέω, 2 Cor 12:16; ἀβαρής, 2 Cor 11:9; ἐπιβαρέω, 2 Thess 3:9, if one is ready to accept it as Pauline), see John G. Strelan, “Burden-Bearing and the Law of Christ: A Re-Examination of Galatians 6:2,” JBL 94.2 (1975): 267–70; John P. Dickson, Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities: The Shape, Extent and Background of Early Christian Mission (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2003), 179–86. Cf. Abraham J. Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 74–75. 18 This statement does not necessarily imply that the author of Acts either witnessed the event, reported what Paul had directly told him, or made use of Paul’s letters, only that, in this particular instance, the way he chose to represent Paul (as he and/or oral tradition remembered him) somewhat coincided with Paul’s self-depiction in, for example, 1 Thess 2:7–9, 1 Cor 4:12, 9:6, and 2 Cor 11:27. For a detailed study of these passages, see Steve Walton, Leadership and Lifestyle: The Portrait of Paul in the Miletus Speech and 1 Thessalonians (SNTSMS 108; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). For a case study of a similar literary parallel between Paul’s letters and Acts, and a discussion of the historiographical issues involved, see Mark Harding, “On the Historicity of Acts: Comparing Acts 9.23–5 with 2 Corinthians 11.32–3,” NTS 39.4 (1993): 518–38. 19 Much of the evidence for this rabbinical ethos postdates A.D. I. since it derives from the Mishnaic tradition, although, it could be argued, it may refer to “principles and propositions” from the Pharisaic period. See Jacob Neusner, ed., The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), xxxiii.

Chapter 1: Introduction

5

propriate (cf. m. Abot 4.5).20 Conversely, Hock has suggested that, far from following the Jewish rabbinical model, Paul actually embodied the Cynic ideal of the working philosopher.21 Whatever the reason for his attitude may have been,22 it is quite certain that Paul, in certain circumstances, felt uneasy about receiving money. This being said, not every scholar has been reluctant to envisage that Paul could somewhat expect the material assistance of his converts. In his seminal essay on the social pattern of the first Christian groups, the Roman historian E. A. Judge commented for instance: It was part of his Jewish traditionalism to have practised a manual skill, but it was only exercised in order to establish a point of honour as his advertisement of it admits. Normally he expected to be supported at the charges of the groups who enjoyed his religious leadership (1 Cor. ix.4; 2 Cor. xi.8, xii.13; Acts xx.33–35).23

20 For two opposite positions on the question, see Martin Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul (London: SCM, 1991), 15–16; and Ronald F. Hock, “The Working Apostle: An Examination of Paul’s Means of Livelihood” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1974), 12–21. Not every Jewish teacher held this view, however (cf. Sir 38:24–25). Cf. Hans Dieter Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner ,Apologie’ 2 Korinther 10–13 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1972), 106–108; Göran Agrell, Work, Toil and Sustenance: An Examination of the View of Work in the New Testament, Taking into Consideration Views Found in Old Testament, Intertestamental, and Early Rabbinic Writings (Stockholm: Verbum, 1976), 63; A. E. Harvey, “‘The Workman is Worthy of His Hire’: Fortunes of a Proverb in the Early Church,” NovT 24.3 (1982): 213–14. 21 Hock concluded his dissertation as follows: “our analysis has shown, whatever the origin of Paul’s having a trade, the meaning of that trade for Paul’s apostleship is particularly intelligible in light of debates within the Cynic school over the ideal of the working philosopher … In fact, it might be said that what was only a Cynic ideal was realized in Paul’s working and preaching.” Hock, “Apostle,” 164–65. Cf. Ronald F. Hock, “Simon the Shoemaker as an Ideal Cynic,” GRBS 17.1 (1976): 41–53. Theissen also identified a possible connection with Cynic philosophy. See Gerd Theissen, “Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie Urchristlicher Missionare,” NTS 21 (1975): 211; repr. in Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982), 27–67. 22 Malherbe somewhat nuances Hock’s position by suggesting that there remain “sufficient differences between Paul and the philosophers to preclude our viewing him as a slavish, unreflective follower of current practice.” Abraham J. Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 70. Cf. Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 208; David E. Briones, Paul’s Financial Policy: A Socio-Theological Approach (LNTS 494; New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), 18–19. 23 Edwin A. Judge, The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century: Some Prolegomena to the Study of New Testament Ideas of Social Obligation (London: The Tyndale Press, 1960), 58 (emphasis added).

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

B. Holmberg would later concur, affirming quite assertively that “all of Paul’s churches” were “in principle obliged to support their apostle,”24 even though, he conceded, he received such help from the Macedonians “with a measure of embarrassment” (cf. 2 Cor 11:7–9).25 According to D. L. Dungan, this was indeed the right of apostles, or of the Pneumatiker for D. Georgi, “which was in general effect in the early Church.”26 Similarly, J. G. Strelan argued that the final injunctions of Galatians 6 placed its recipients under “the obligation to provide for the material support of Paul and his co-workers,”27 a line of thought which W. Pratscher would further develop in his reading of Philippians 4: Hier geht es ebenso wie Phil. 4.15 um die Abwicklung von Rechtsangelegenheiten. Die Gabe der Philipper ist (so sehr sie freiwillig gegeben wurde) grundsätzlich nicht Sache der Freiwilligkeit, sondern einer rechtlichen Verpflichtung gegenüber Paulus. Paulus hat ein Recht auf diese Unterstützung durch die Philipper bzw. durch alle seine Gemeinden; denn er brachte ihnen eine δόσις, das Evangelium, und hat deshalb das Recht auf eine λήµψις, eine Bezahlung. Die Gabe der Philipper hat also den Charakter einer ‘pflichtgemäßen Leistung’, gleichsam eines Tributes. 28

For Pratscher, Paul never denied his apostolic right to receive support from communities in which he was not working (cf. 1 Cor 9), but, in certain circumstances, he was disposed to forfeit the exercise of it.29 In sum, he considered that Paul clung unto his apostolic right in principle only, though not in practice.30 The last sentence of the above citation seems to reveal that Pratscher was, to a certain degree, influenced by E. Lohmeyer in his interpretation. The latter had indeed suggested that Paul, out of practical considerations (“aus praktischen Missionserwägungen und -erfahrungen”), and as a testimony of his close friendship with the Philippians (“ein Zeichen besonderer Nähe”, “als Freundlichkeit”), had granted them what he had denied everyone else, that is, the privilege, indeed the grace 24 Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 89. 25 Holmberg, Paul, 91. Cf. F. F. Bruce, “St. Paul in Macedonia: 3. The Philippian Correspondence,” BJRL 63 (1981): 274. 26 David L. Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul: The Use of the Synoptic Tradition in the Regulation of Early Church Life (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 27. Cf. Ibid., 4–26; Dieter Georgi, Die Geschichte der Kollekte des Paulus für Jerusalem (Hamburg-Bergstedt: H. Reich, 1965), 47. 27 Strelan, “Burden-Bearing.” 28 Wilhelm Pratscher, “Der Verzicht des Paulus auf finanziellen Unterhalt durch seine Gemeinden: Ein Aspekt seiner Missionsweise,” NTS 25 (1979): 286 (emphasis added). 29 So Dungan, Sayings, 32. Cf. John Barnet, “Paul’s Reception of the Gift from Philippi,” SVTQ 50.3 (2006): 234–37. 30 Pratscher, “Verzicht,” 286: “Auf dieses Recht verzichtet er nie, wohl aber verzichtet er (unter bestimmten Bedingungen) auf die Inanspruchnahme des Rechts. Am Recht hält er prinzipiell fest, nicht aber am faktischen Unterhalt selbst.”

Chapter 1: Introduction

7

(“Gnade”), of supporting him in his mission.31 This was but a fair repayment, a “Tribut,” that they owed to their community founder, who was himself entitled to such gifts as an apostle (“Als Apostel hat Pls. ein Anrecht auf Gaben”).32 This derogation to the rule (of not accepting financial support) was not his initiative, however, but that of the Philippians themselves.33 Incidentally, Lohmeyer argued, this explained his apparent lack of gratefulness in 4:10–20: the exercise of their duty (“die Ausübung dieser Pflicht”) made his “Dank an die Gemeinde” unnecessary (“unnötig”).34 While apparently unaware of the works of Pratscher and Lohmeyer, J. P. Dickson propounded a somewhat similar argument, concluding that “Paul believed he was entitled to receive support from those to whom he preached (1 Thess 2:7a; 2 Thess 3:9; 1 Cor 9:5–6)” in the form of “‘maintenance’ or ‘hospitality’ (for both preacher and wife),” though to the exclusion of “‘fees’ or ‘payments of any kind’.”35 As regards the Philippian gift, Dickson then contended that it was “neither a ‘reimbursement’ for representative services, nor a ‘payment’ for services received,” but “an act of love,” “a ‘grace’.”36 Indeed, “the giving of occasional gifts was above and beyond what Paul ‘expected’ of his congregations.”37 Others still have opined that the Philippians’ gift simply represented “an expression of their friendship,” which was meant to cultivate an already positive and fruitful relationship.38 In all fairness, these scholars also have a point inasmuch as there is substantial evidence in Paul’s letters, as well as in Acts,39 that he sometimes 31

Ernst Lohmeyer, Der Brief an die Philipper (KEK 9.1; 12th ed; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), 185. 32 Lohmeyer, Philipper, 185. 33 Lohmeyer, Philipper, 186. 34 Lohmeyer, Philipper, 185. 35 Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 193. Dickson however admitted that “in the context of both his Thessalonian and Corinthian missions at least Paul did not make use of his rights” (p. 194). Note: neither Pratscher nor Lohmeyer is referenced in Dickson’s bibliography. 36 Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 204. 37 Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 204. 38 John T. Fitzgerald, “Philippians in the Light of Some Ancient Discussions of Friendship,” in Friendship, Flattery and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World (ed. J. T. Fitzgerald; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 153. Cf. Lohmeyer, Philipper, 185; Wolfgang Schenk, Die Philipperbriefe des Paulus (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1984), 62–65; Ken L. Berry, “The Function of Friendship Language in Philippians 4:10–20,” in Friendship, Flattery and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World (ed. J. T. Fitzgerald; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 107–24; Peterlin, Philippians, 180. 39 We are in agreement with scholars who consider Acts as providing secondary evidence on the life of Paul, inasmuch as it offers a remembered picture of the apostle, while his letters represent our primary sources. This does not necessarily imply that Acts

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

received material and/or financial support from some of his disciples, which allowed him to dedicate more time to the work of the ministry. The Philippians, for instance, assisted him on several occasions as he left Macedonia and while he was in Corinth (Phil 4:15–16; cf. 2 Cor 11:7–9). Indeed, as D. L. Dungan has argued, they seem to have supplied him in such “sufficient amount…that it could be termed a salary.”40 When in prison, they attended to his needs through Epaphroditus, who may have been bringing him provisions on a regular basis (Phil 2:25, 4:18; cf. Lucian, Peregr. 12–13), since prisoners were usually left to rely on the assistance of friends and family (if they were not sustained with meagre rations of food and water).41 At other times, he freely enjoyed the hospitality of the likes of Gaius (Rom 16:23),42 Philemon (Phlm 22), Lydia (according to Acts 16:14–15), and perhaps Phoebe, who is once described as his προστάτις (Rom 16:1– 2).43 Such hospitality would have represented a substantial form of material should be dismissed altogether as unreliable historical material, but only that it should be used critically. We therefore see no particular reason to reject certain accounts of Acts when they corroborate Paul’s letters. Cf. John Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul (New York: Abingdon, 1950); Johannes Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (Atlanta: John Knox, 1959), 78–81; Gerd Lüdemann, Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987), 1–18. For a more general discussion on the moot question of the historicity of Acts, see for instance Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London: SCM, 1956); Ernst Haenchen, “The Book of Acts as Source Material for the History of Early Christianity,” in Studies in Luke-Acts (eds. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn; London: SPCK, 1968), 258–78; Richard N. Longenecker, “The Acts of the Apostles as a Witness to Early Palestinian Christianity,” Themelios 5.1 (1968): 15–23; I. Howard Marshall, Luke, Historian and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970); Martin Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (ed. C. H. Gempf; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989), 1–14; Bruce W. Winter, ed., The Book of Acts in its First-Century Setting (5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993–1996); Richard I. Pervo, A Commentary on the Book of Acts (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 14–18. 40 Dungan, Sayings, 29. 41 Cf. Craig S. Wansink, Chained in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul’s Imprisonments (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 126–46, 188–98 (passim). For a gruesome account of the living conditions in Roman prisons, see ibid., 27–95. Cf. Brian Rapske, The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody (vol. 3 of The Book of Acts in its First-Century Setting; ed. B. W. Winter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 195–225. 42 Unless it was Gaius himself, as a guest (ξένος), who enjoyed the hospitality of Paul and of the whole church. On Gaius’ possible role as a host of Paul and of the church in Corinth, see most recently L. L. Welborn, An End to Enmity: Paul and the “Wrongdoer” of Second Corinthians (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 241–50, 286–87, 321–35, 364–69. 43 What Phoebe’s role entailed is not entirely clear. On the significance of the term, see LSJ, s.v. προστάτις, προστάτης; BDAG, s.v. προστάτις; MM, s.v. προστάτις; Hans Schaeffer, “προστάτης,”PW[2] 9:1287–1304. Cf. Edwin A. Judge, “Cultural Conformity

Chapter 1: Introduction

9

support since it generally included food, lodging, and maybe provisions for travel.44 As it has often been noted, the term προπέµπω, which Paul employs several times rather expectantly (Rom 15:24; 1 Cor 16:6, 11; 2 Cor 1:16; cf. Titus 3:13; 3 John 1:6), may have sometimes implied supplying to a traveller’s practical needs (but see 2 Macc 6:23; Acts 20:38, 21:5).45 After all, Paul had a right to claim material assistance from the churches he founded, as he made clear to the Corinthians: those who proclaim the gospel shall live of the gospel (1 Cor 9:14; cf. 2 Thess 3:9). Both Moses and Jesus had established that diligent workers ought to be paid the wages they deserve (1 Cor 9: 8–14), a principle which may have in fact been reinforced by an early missionary rule.46 Likewise, he instructed the Galatians that those who are taught the word of God ought to share in all things with their instructor (Gal 6:6). However, Paul had laid no such claim upon the Corinthians, thus turning a direct command of the Lord into a discretionary privilege.47 Or, as Theissen argued, he may have preferred to surrender his “apostolic duty … to practice charismatic poverty” (i.e., to be “dependent [in faith] on other’s generosity”). 48 For P. Marshall and L. L. Welborn, on the other hand, Paul had and Innovation in Paul: Some Clues from Contemporary Documents,” TynB 35 (1984): 17–22; R. A. Kearsley, “Women in Public Life in the Roman East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora and Phoibe, Benefactress of Paul,” TynB 50.2 (1999): 189–211 (repr. from Ancient Society 15 [1985]); Horsley, NewDocs 4, 239–44, #122; Erlend D. MacGillivray, “Romans 16:2, προστάτις/προστάτης, and the Application of Reciprocal Relationships to New Testament Texts,” NovT 53 (2011): 183–99. For a summary of recent secondary literature on the question, see especially Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 945–48. 44 For a socio-theological study of hospitality in antiquity and in the early church, see for instance, John B. Mathews, “Hospitality and the New Testament Church: An Historical and Exegetical Study” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1965). For a more general treatment, see Abraham J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity (rev. and enl. ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 92–112; Beate Wagner-Hasel, “Hospitality,” BNP. Accessed November 2012. Online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/ entries/brill-s-new-pauly/hospitality-e419230. 45 See Mathews, “Hospitality,” 230–34; Abraham J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1977), 67–68; L. Michael White, “Social Authority in the House Church Setting and Ephesians 4:1–16,” ResQ 29 (1987): 217; Holmberg, Paul, 86–87; Peterman, Gift, 164–65; Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 194–201. Cf. BDAG, s.v. προπέµπω; but see LSJ, s.v. προπέµπω. 46 Dungan, Sayings, 40. For a discussion of this instruction in the Synoptic tradition, see Dungan, Sayings, 41–75. Cf. Pratscher, “Verzicht,” 291. 47 Paul is free to do so, Dungan argued, since following it scrupulously “would hinder the entry of anyone into the Lord’s salvation” (italics original). Dungan, Sayings, 25. Cf. Datiri, “Finances,” 141. 48 Thus, the criticism voiced against Paul could be understood as an accusation of “a lack of trust in the grace of God,” Theissen contended. “Seen this way Paul is dependent

10

Chapter 1: Introduction

rejected their offer of friendship in the form of a gift (while accepting support from the Philippians, which precipitated the breakdown of his relationship with the Corinthians), so as not to become entrapped by the social demands of such unequal patronal friendships.49 As he confessed in an ironic rhetorical outburst,50 he had plundered (ἐσύλησα) other churches (ἄλλας ἐκκλησίας)51 – most likely, the Philippians here – by receiving (λαβών) from them an ὀψώνιον (2 Cor 11:8–9), which, lest the irony of the statement be lost, should be understood as referring to a wage (either in cash or kind), or an allowance.52 Overall, E. E. Ellis’ conclusion thus remains rather pertinent: “The right to remuneration is evident not only from such passages as Gal. vi but also on his work; he is not free and is no real apostle (9:1), for he has offended against the norm of primitive Christian ideal of itinerant charismatics set down by Jesus himself.” Theissen, Setting, 43. 49 Peter Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul’s Relationship with the Corinthians (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987), 233, 257; Welborn, Enmity, 368, 398–400. Cf. Judge, “Cultural Conformity,” 15–16, 23; Steve Walton, “Paul, Patronage and Pay: What Do We Know about the Apostle’s Financial Support,” in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology and Practice (eds. T. J. Burke and B. S. Rosner; London: T. & T. Clark International, 2011), 224. 50 Cf. Josef Zmijewski, Der Stil der paulinischen “Narrenrede”: Analyse der Sprachgestaltung in 2 Kor 11, 1–12, 10 als Beitrag zur Methodik von Stiluntersuchungen neutestamentlicher Texte (Cologne: P. Hanstein, 1978), 126–27. Zmijewski especially associated Paul’s ironical pique with his rhetorical question in v. 7. Cf. Welborn, Enmity, 132–35. 51 The plural form has long puzzled scholars. Given Paul’s assertion in Phil 4:15 that no other church had partnered with him, one feels compelled to view the brothers of 2 Cor 11:9 as solely referring to the Philippians (to the exclusion of the Thessalonians and the Bereans), in which case the ἐκκλησίαι mentioned would seem to correspond to house churches in the vicinity of Philippi. 52 Caragounis has contended that ὀψώνιον represents provisions, rather than wage or salary, which usually implies, from a modern perspective at least, a contractual employer-employee relationship. However, Cuvigny has observed that in ostraca from Mons Claudianus the word always corresponds to a (waged) allowance, “l’argent qui permet d’acheter de quoi accompagner la ration frumentaire” (thereby differing from µισθός which signifies “louage”). Likewise, Rathbone has noted that in the Heroninos archive, the term can be assimilated to a salary as it designates “a fixed monthly allowance of cash and wheat and sometimes vegetable oil, whereas occasional employees received a misthos, that is ‘wages’.” Chrys C. Caragounis, “ΟΨΩΝΙΟΝ: A Reconsideration of its Meaning,” NovT 16.1 (1974): 35–57; Cuvigny, O.Claud. III, p. 41; Dominic Rathbone, Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third-Century A.D. Egypt: The Heroninos Archive and the Appianus Estate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 91– 92. Cf. LSJ, s.v., ὀψώνιον; MM, s.v. ὀψώνιον; Deissmann, BS, 266; Horsley, NewDocs 2, 93, #65; Sitta von Reden, Money in Ptolemaic Egypt: From the Macedonian Conquest to the End of the Third Century BC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 130– 32, 138.

Chapter 1: Introduction

11

from Paul’s almost obsessive attention to the question.”53 Nevertheless, it seems that, in certain circumstances, such as whilst in Corinth, Paul was willing to relinquish his privilege so as to avoid becoming a stumbling block to some (1 Cor 9:12; 2 Cor 11:7, 12:14), and also perhaps to avoid being perceived as an avaricious sophist (cf. Plato, Gorg. 520; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 9.1.5–7; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1:13; Lucian, Hermot. 59).54 Paul certainly took great pain to explain in words reminiscent of the disputes between the philosophers and the sophists that he was no peddler (καπηλεύων) of God’s word (2 Cor 2:17; cf. 1 Thess 2:5).55 Understandably, this attitude must have placed him under serious constraints, confining him to the workshop for most of the day, and indeed sometimes part of the night, as Hock has persuasively argued.56 As can be gathered from this succinct overview, Paul’s stance towards financial support is not so easy to comprehend and synthesize. It appears rather inconsistent and incoherent, if not plainly contradictory at times.57 For J. P. Sampley, this is the evidence that “Paul did not have a set policy concerning the financing of his preaching mission,”58 while for D. Peterlin 53 Ellis, “Co-workers,” 443. He pursues: “On the one hand he firmly asserts, on biblical and dominical authority, the right of the ‘worker’, i.e. preacher, to his wage. On the other hand it is his boast that he does not exercise this right, and he urges certain persons in Thessalonica to ‘imitate us’ in this matter.” 54 Cf. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1915), 302; Betz, Apostel Paulus, 100–117; Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 517 (n. 32); Bruce W. Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-Claudian Movement (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 91–94, 167–69, 228–29. Cf. Dungan, Sayings, 15–16; Datiri, “Finances,” 141; Walton, “Paul,” 224–25. 55 Cf. Hans Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief (KEK 6; 9th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924), 100–101; Paul V. Furnish, II Corinthians (AB 32A; New York: Doubleday, 1984), 178; Hock, “Apostle,” 63. 56 Hock, Context. Stowers has stressed, on the other hand, that private houses provided the primary platform for Paul’s preaching. See Stanley K. Stowers, “Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity,” NovT 26.1 (1984): 59–82. 57 Cf. Morton Smith, “Pauline Problems: Apropos of J. Munck, ‘Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte’,” HTR 50.2 (1957): 111 (n. 10); John H. Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 235 (n. 1); Marshall, Enmity, 255–57; Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 178. Baldanza sees no particular contradiction in Paul’s attitude: his use of sacrificial language in Phil 4:18–19 suggests to him that Paul considered the Philippians’ contribution as an offering comparable to that which the priests were allowed to consume (cf. 1 Cor 9:13–14). Giuseppe Baldanza, “La portata theologica di ὀσµὴ εὐωδίας in Fil 4, 18,” Laur 47 (2006): 182–84. 58 J. Paul. Sampley, Pauline Partnership in Christ: Christian Community and Commitment in Light of Roman Law (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 84.

12

Chapter 1: Introduction

it simply reveals that “Paul’s practice varied from case to case, from church to church and from time to time.”59 Yet, what is perhaps most frustrating is that Paul’s actual motives remain somewhat unclear to us. As a resigned H. D. Betz once remarked: “Man kann sich des Eindrucks nicht erwehren, daß wir in 1 Kor 9 die wirklichen Hintergründe, die das Verhalten des Paulus bestimmt haben, nicht erfahren.”60 For Holmberg, Paul accepted money for missionary purposes only after he had left a church with which he had established a “full, trusting κοινωνία” – whatever Holmberg understands by κοινωνία is not clear to us.61 Pratscher, on the other hand, argued that Paul’s inconsistent attitude was not based on any particular principle or a disparity in affection (viz., because he had “ein wärmeres Liebesverhältnis” with the Macedonians), but could be explained by the differing circumstances affecting the Corinthian and Philippian communities at the time, a view somewhat already held by Theissen.62 In Corinth, hostility towards Paul was exacerbated by the Gegner and required him to forfeit his right to financial support.63 In contrast, G. W. Peterman has contended that scholars have failed to discern the various types of support which Paul mentions. Thus, he proposed the following resolution: Paul refers to three types of material aid in his letters: support while present with a congregation (the support due him as an apostle), travel expenses, and mission support. The evidence shows that he rejected the first, asked for the second, and gladly received the third.64

To Peterman’s mind, Paul’s acceptance of a gift from Philippi therefore represented “one exception” to his “general practice to be self-supporting,”65 a conclusion also reached by G. A. Deissmann, W. Schmithals, J. P. Dickson, and R. S. Ascough, but which B. Holmberg and D. E. Briones (for different reasons) would probably dispute.66 Indeed, Holmberg’s view 59

Peterlin, Philippians, 215. Betz, Apostel Paulus, 104. 61 Holmberg, Paul, 91. Holmberg is followed by Martin and Reumann. See Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC 40; Waco: Word Books, 1986), 345; John Reumann, “Contributions of the Philippian Community to Paul and to Earliest Christianity,” NTS 39 (1993): 441–42. 62 Pratscher, “Verzicht,” 293. Cf. Theissen, “Legitimation,” 204: “Außerdem müssen wir annehmen, daß der Unterhaltsverzicht sachlich begründet war, nicht nur ‘kausal’ bedingt, sondern intentional gewollt war. Es handelt sich ja um eine sinnvolle Anpassung tradierter Normen an veränderte Verhältnisse.” 63 Pratscher, “Verzicht,” 294, 298. 64 Peterman, Gift, 166–67. Cf. Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 179. 65 Peterman, Gift, 9. Cf. ibid., 119–20. 66 Deissmann, Paul, 237; Walter Schmithals, The Office of Apostle in the Early Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969), 47; Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 208–12; Rich60

Chapter 1: Introduction

13

was that “it is not the church in Philippi that proves the exception to Paul’s rule of not accepting money from his churches; on the contrary, it is the church in Corinth that is the exception to Paul’s custom of permitting and gladly accepting financial support from his churches.”67 More recently, Briones has proposed to resolve Paul’s seemingly contradictory policy by differentiating two distinct stages in his missionary strategy: 1) Paul enters and preaches the gospel in city A, whilst remaining self-supportive and financially independent (to distinguish himself from sophists, itinerant philosophers, and other teachers, and to draw attention to God as the original source of the gospel); 2) Paul moves to city B where stage 1 is repeated, whilst he receives material assistance from the church in city A.68 Briones thus (quite ingeniously) explained Paul’s apparent “double standard” by “an overlapping of the stages.”69 Whatever Paul’s real motives and strategy may have been, the difficulties scholars have experienced in reaching a consensus on the matter clearly illustrates that there remain some substantial gaps in our knowledge of Paul’s policy vis-à-vis the funding of his mission. What is also apparent is that, quite often, insufficient attention has been paid to the apologetic tone and rhetorical exigence of passages such as 1 Thessalonians 2:7–9 or 1 Corinthians 9, in which Paul develops a particularly intricate argument which is hemmed by his discussion concerning the consumption of idolmeat in chapters 8 and 10 – his attitude is thus set up as an example of renunciation of a privilege for the sake of the greater good of the community. 70 In Thessalonica, Paul had to establish an ethical pattern for the church to follow and correct the idleness and meddlesomeness of some who lived at the expense of others (1 Thess 2:7–9, 4:1, 10–12; cf. 2 Thess 3:7–12),71 while in Corinth he needed to answer reproaches for not accepting their offer of friendship (through a gift, presumably) and refute charges of financial misconduct (2 Cor 11:7–9, 12:16–17).72

ard S. Ascough, Paul’s Macedonian Associations: The Social Context of Philippians and 1 Thessalonians (WUNT 2.161; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 153. 67 Holmberg, Paul, 92. Cf. Briones, Financial Policy, 224–25; Reumann, “Contributions,” 442. 68 Briones, Financial Policy, 219–20. 69 Briones, Financial Policy, 220. 70 Cf. Dungan, Sayings, 4–6, 33. For a recent, detailed exegesis of the passage, see John Goodrich, Paul as an Administrator of God in 1 Corinthians: The Graeco-Roman Context of 1 Corinthians (SNTSMS 152; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 165–97. 71 This may have been due to their imminent eschatological expectation. Cf. Agrell, Work, 95–106; Malherbe, Paul and Thessalonians, 98–101. 72 Cf. Marshall, Enmity, 143–47, 257–58; Welborn, Enmity, 132–39, 368, 398–400.

14

Chapter 1: Introduction

There is thus some truth in Dungan’s remark that “his sweeping, categorical repudiations [in 1 Cor 9] should not be taken literally” (and generally).73 Indeed, “[t]hey are all intended to apply only to the Corinthians, and … exude a certain rhetorical melodrama concerned primarily with making the point regarding idol-meat.”74 Furthermore, we ought not to overlook the situational differences between the church at Corinth, which was torn by inner divisions and at times in open conflict with Paul, and the church at Philippi, with whom the apostle appears to have enjoyed a more fruitful and harmonious relationship.75 Evidently, such contrasts render any attempt to derive a standard Pauline position rather precarious. So we should perhaps refrain from considering any one of these passages as “a general and programmatic treatise” on the question.76 It is in any case beyond the purview of this study to attempt to find an innovative and coherent solution to this conundrum (unlike Briones’ recent thesis). Rather, our intention is to investigate the socio-economic dimension of one particular relationship which Paul maintained with a number of his converts. As already noted, his letter to the Philippians gives indisputable evidence that he received generous support from them on several occasions (καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δίς, 4:16).77 This is made very clear right from the onset when he expresses his gratitude to God (εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ µου) for the Philippians’ κοινωνία with respect to the proclamation of the gospel (εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) from the first day onwards (ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἡµέρας ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν, 1:3–5).78 Further down the letter (if we follow the canonical order), he reiterates his acknowledgement of their gracious support: οἴδατε δὲ καὶ ὑµεῖς, Φιλιππήσιοι, ὅτι ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας, οὐδεµία µοι ἐκκλησία ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως εἰ µὴ ὑµεῖς µόνοι, ὅτι καὶ ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δὶς εἰς τὴν χρείαν µοι ἐπέµψατε. (4:15–16)

73

Dungan, Sayings, 23. Dungan, Sayings, 23. 75 Peterlin of course refuted any idyllic state of the church in Philippi, but his overall argumentation is rather overstated. See Peterlin, Philippians. 76 This comment was made in reference to Phil 4:10–20. Peterlin, Philippians, 215. 77 Cf. a similar use in 1 Thess 2:18. The expression καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δίς implies more than two instances of a repeated action (e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 8.56.1; Deut 9:13; 1 Sam 17:39; 1 Macc 3:30). Cf. BDAG, s.v. ἅπαξ; W. Stählin, TDNT, 1:381; Leon Morris, “Καὶ ἅπαξ ϰαὶ δίς,” NovT 1.3 (1956): 205–208. 78 We understand the term εὐαγγέλιον to be referring to the act of proclamation of the good news here, rather than to its theological content. Cf. BDAG, s.v. εὐαγγέλιον 1.; Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 62; Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 124; James P. Ware, The Mission of the Church in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the context of Ancient Judaism (NovTSup 120; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 165–67. 74

Chapter 1: Introduction

15

As we purport to demonstrate, the language of κοινωνία here in 4:15–19, a passage which is characterised by an unusual concentration of technical financial terms (e.g., εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως, 4:15; ἀπέχω, πληρόω, 4:18), and in 1:5–7 (κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, συγκοινωνός µου τῆς χάριτος), is neither accidental nor incidental. In context, it is doubtful that the cognates κοινωνία, κοινωνέω, and (συγ)κοινωνός, bear the theological connotations that generations of commentators have ascribed to them. Nor should it be immediately assumed that the surrounding termini technici were meant in a metaphorical sense, considering that Paul had actually received some kind of material contribution. Rather, we shall argue that Paul employed the term κοινωνία in reference to the strategic economic partnership he established with the Philippians, whereby they cooperated in his missionary activities by providing material and human resources, while he performed the work of the ministry. Before going any further, however, we ought to acknowledge that this idea is not entirely original. Indeed, it has already been propounded (in slightly nuanced fashion) by at least two scholars, whose work we shall now review.79

1.2 History of Research on Paul’s Economic Partnerships Amid the more general literature acknowledged above, only two scholars, J. P. Sampley and J. Fleury, have articulated detailed hypotheses regarding Paul’s potential economic partnerships.80 In what follows, we shall offer a succinct review of their seminal contributions, raise some critical questions 79 Others have somewhat given assent to the general idea of partnership and have built on the work of Fleury and Sampley (with some adaptation). However, insofar as they did not elaborate their thesis as comprehensively as Fleury and Sampley did, they need not be reviewed in detail. See for instance Paul F. Aspan, “Toward a New Reading of Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in Light of a Kuhnian Analysis of New Testament Criticism” (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1990), 219–20, 255; Brian J. Capper, “Paul’s Dispute with Philippi: Understanding Paul’s Argument in Phil 1–2 from his Thanks in 4.10–20,” TZ 49 (1993): 193–214; G. Walter Hansen, “Transformation of Relationships: Partnership, Citizenship, and Friendship in Philippi,” in New Testament Greek and Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Gerald F. Hawthorne (eds. A. M. Donaldson and T. B. Sailors; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 181–204. We shall also omit P. N. Groves’ study since it consists of a missiological application of Sampley’s societas model to a modern ecclesiastical situation. See Philip N. Groves, “A Model for Partnership: A Model for Partnership Distilled from the Relationship between Paul and the Philippian Church as a Tool to Examine the Partnership Programmes of the Anglican Communion and to Propose New Directions” (Ph.D. diss., The University of Birmingham, 2009). 80 Jean Fleury, “Une société de fait dans l’église apostolique (Phil. 4:10 à 22),” in Mélanges Philippe Meylan (vol. 2; Lausanne: Université de Lausanne, 1963), 41–59; Sampley, Partnership.

16

Chapter 1: Introduction

about certain aspects of their methodology and conclusions, and highlight possible avenues for further research. We shall then examine one more recent study by G. W. Peterman, who has rejected Fleury and Sampley’s interpretations and has sought to provide an alternative explanation for Paul’s economic exchanges with the Philippians.81 Since his critique of Fleury and Sampley has mustered considerable scholarly support, we shall submit it to a thorough critical analysis, which will allow us to highlight the importance of ancient documentary evidence and to discuss methodological issues relating to philology and historiography. We shall conclude our review of the history of scholarship by acknowledging very briefly two more recent contributions, which, although they have sought to address the issue of Paul’s financial policy, have not greatly advanced our understanding of the nature of Paul’s economic interaction with the Philippians (from a first-century socio-economic perspective). 1.2.1 Paul’s société de fait (J. Fleury) Although several scholars had already noticed the commercial terminology in Phil 4:10–20,82 J. Fleury was probably the first to explore seriously its 81 It is beyond our scope to offer a detailed review of Fleury and Sampley’s critics. The literature on the question is indeed extensive. See for instance Horsley, NewDocs 3, 19, #4; D. M. Sweetland, “Review of J. P. Sampley, Pauline Partnership in Christ,” CBQ 44 (1982): 689–90; A. C. Wire, “Review of J. P. Sampley, Pauline Partnership in Christ,” JBL 101.3 (1982): 468–69; L. M. White, “Morality between Two Worlds: A Paradigm of Friendship in Philippians,” in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (eds. D. L. Balch, E. Ferguson, and W. A. Meeks; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 206–215; G. W. Peterman, “ ‘Thankless Thanks’,” TynBul 42.2 (1991): 261–70; Timothy Geoffrion, The Rhetorical Purpose and the Political and Military Character of Philippians: A Call to Stand Firm (Lewiston: Mellen, 1993), 86–88; Reumann, “Contributions,” 441 (n. 14); Peterlin, Philippians, 177–81; Berry, “Friendship,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 118; Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letters to the Philippians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 436–39; Witherington III, Friendship, 118–21; Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 202–203; Witherington III, Philippians, 279; Carolyn Osiek, Philippians, Philemon (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), 121; Ascough, Macedonian Associations, 120 (n. 46); Lukas Bormann, Philippi: Stadt und Christengemeinde zur Zeit des Paulus (NovTSup 78; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 181– 87; Barnet, “Reception,” 225–27; Briones, Financial Policy, 71–73. Aspan, Capper, Joubert, Hansen, and Groves, are the rare scholars who are more positive in their response. See Aspan, “Philippians,” 219–20, 255; Capper, “Dispute,” 193–214; Stephan Joubert, Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection (WUNT 2.124; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), 101; Hansen, “Transformation,” 184; Groves, “Partnership”. 82 E.g., Heinrich A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians (CECNT; trans. by W. P. Wilson; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1875), 221–22; Deissmann, LAE, 84, 110–111; J. B. Lightfoot, St Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan, 1913; repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1953), 165;

Chapter 1: Introduction

17

socio-economic implications. As a professor of Roman law, Fleury could not help but notice the technical language of this passage, “les expressions de la langue des affaires.”83 In particular, he recognised in the verb κοινωνέω (4:15) an allusion to the establishment of a commercial κοινωνία, “une société matérielle,” between Paul and Lydia, the patroness of the church in Philippi.84 Relying on the account of Acts, he posited that they had decided to work together as the “artisans actifs d’une sorte d’atelier commun dans la maison de Lydia.”85 By virtue of their joint-agreement, they had formed what Roman law viewed as a societas universorum quae ex quaestu veniunt, that is, a partnership in all the profits generated through commercial activities (cf. Dig. 17.2.7), which Fleury described in modern legal terminology as “une société universelle de gains,” i.e., “une société de fait.”86 Contrary to the opinion of earlier commentators, Fleury also argued that the expression λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως was not referring to a figurative account, for “le compte existe dans la réalité terrestre.”87 It referred to the “compte courant” (i.e., current account) of the joint-venture recording the revenues (accepta) and expenses (expensa) made to the account of the common fund (arca communis).88 Paul, as an associate, was thus (legally) entitled to receive a share of the profits of the partnership to provide for his own needs (χρεία, 4:16), which is what he had claimed while in Thessalonica.89 In the conclusion of his article, Fleury suggested that, by employing the term ἀπέχω (4:18), Paul did not only acknowledge his receipt of the Philippians’ contribution, but in effect also terminated the societas and closed its account: “Paul dit en effet: je donne quittance pour tout, et, par cette formule, il met fin à la société dans laquelle il était entré autrefois à Philippes, chez Lydia.”90 H. C. G. Moule, The Epistle to the Philippians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 87–88; Marvin R. Vincent, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897), 148; H. A. A. Kennedy, “The Financial Colouring of Philippians iv. 15–18,” The Expository Times 12 (1900): 43–44; Plummer, Philippians, 103–105; C. H. Dodd, “Pauline Illustrations from Recently Published Papyri,” Exp 8th 15 (1918): 291– 96; Lohmeyer, Philipper, 184–87; Werner Straub, Die Bildersprache des Apostels Paulus (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1937), 27, 46; Beare, Philippians, 149–50, 155–56. 83 Fleury, “société,” 41. 84 Fleury, “société,” 45. 85 Fleury, “société,” 47. 86 Fleury, “société,” 50–51. 87 Fleury, “société,” 48. 88 Fleury, “société,” 46. Cf. ibid., 51–52. 89 Fleury, “société,” 53–54. 90 Fleury, “société,” 55.

18

Chapter 1: Introduction

Although Fleury’s insights have not always been appreciated at their true value – B. J. Capper and G. D. Fee, for instance, demeaned them as purely “fanciful”91 – his thesis has much to commend. To date, his contribution remains one of the most serious attempts to explain Paul’s commercial terminology from a socio-economic and legal perspective. Nevertheless, his work presents a number of difficulties that invite several critical comments. To begin with, his reliance on Acts and other Pauline material is rather uncritical, and fails to consider Acts as secondary material vis-à-vis Pauline history. 92 Secondly, Fleury did not properly define what he understood by the technical terms “compte courant,”93 or even “société de fait,”94 which may explain the confusion of some of his reviewers who may not have been as well versed in French legal terminology. Nor did he acknowledge the anachronisms of such modern categories.95 As M. Vasseur and X. Marin have shown, the concept of a compte courant, for instance, was unknown to the Romans and appeared in Europe only around the eighteenth century. 96 Furthermore, Fleury oscillated (somewhat confusingly) in his interpretation of Paul’s κοινωνία between a societas universorum quae ex quaestu veniunt (cf. pp. 50–51, 55), a partnership whereby all the profits acquired through (non-specific) commercial activities were 91

Capper, “Dispute,” 201. Fee concurred with Capper and cited him. Fee, Philippians, 443 (n. 18). 92 Cf. Knox, Chapters; Munck, Paul, 78–81. See our earlier footnote for a sample of references dealing with the question of the historicity of Acts. 93 The technical definition of a compte courant is rather complex. Put simply, it consists of a two-tier account in which figure the owner’s regular credit and debit operations (hence, courant), which are then computed to determine the balance. The specificity of the account resides in the fact that “les diverses créances nées des opérations juridiques multiples, realisées entre les parties au compte, perdent leur autonomie; elles deviennent de simples articles du crédit et du débit, attachés dorénavant au compte par un lien juridique d’une nature particulièrement étroite.” Michel Vasseur and Xavier Marin, Les comptes en banque (Paris: Sirey, 1966), 365. 94 Fleury simply equated it to a societas universorum quae ex quaestu veniunt, assuming his audience would be familiar with both concepts. Based on article 1873 of the French code civil, a société de fait may be defined as follows: “Situation consécutive à la conduite de personnes ayant contribuées à une action professionnelle ou économique dont elles ont partagé les bénéfices ou les pertes, adoptant sans en avoir véritablement conscience l’attitude d’associés.” Rémy Cabrillac, Dictionnaire du vocabulaire juridique (Paris: Litec, 2008), 376. 95 For instance, much confusion has been caused regarding the codex accepti et expensi by resorting to modern categories and techniques of accounting. See Ralf M. Thilo, Der Codex accepti et expensi im Römischen Recht: Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von der Litteralobligation (Göttingen: Muster-Schmidt, 1980), 2–4. 96 Vasseur and Marin, Les comptes, 366–69. Cf. Thilo, Codex, 9–10; Jean Andreau, Banques et affaires dans le monde romain IVe siècle av. J.-C.–IIIe siècle ap. J.-C. (Paris: Seuil, 2001), 91.

Chapter 1: Introduction

19

shared amongst the partners (Dig. 17.2.7), and a societas omnium bonorum (cf. p. 53), a type of partnership which had become rather uncommon in the imperial era and through which all of the partners’ assets were held in common (Dig. 17.2.1.1).97 Thirdly, Fleury did not explicate satisfactorily the unusual reference to the λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως, which Paul and the Philippians kept in common (ἐκοινώνησεν, 4:15). For reasons we shall provide in our third chapter, we concur with him that it consisted of “un livre de recettes et de dépenses.”98 However, Fleury seems to have oversimplified the intricacies of such an interpretation. Did he understand it to correspond to the ratio accepti et dati/expensi of a private banker, as B. H. D Hermesdorf had suggested two years earlier?99 Was it the account-book (tabulae) of the societas itself (cf. Cicero, Verr. 2.2.76: confectae tabulae societatis)?100 Or did it refer to the codex accepti et expensi traditionally kept by wealthy patres familiae during the Republican era?101 Fleury remained ambiguous on this matter and seems to have envisaged an (improbable) combination of the last two kinds of account, when he suggested that “[l]a société avait une arca communis, caisse commune, dont le λόγος δόσεως καί λήµψεως de chacun des membres constituait le tableau et la preuve des relations communes des associés.”102 97 Cf. W. W. Buckland, A Text-Book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian (3rd ed., rev. by P. Stein; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 507; Reinhard Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Cape Town: Juta, 1990), 452–54. 98 Fleury, “société,” 51. 99 B. H. D Hermesdorf indeed argued that the account mentioned in Philippians 4:15 was that of a Macedonian banker, in which the Philippians had deposited money, and from which Epaphroditus withdrew funds upon reaching the city where Paul was staying (which Hermesdorf thought to be Rome). The aim of this transaction was to allow Epaphroditus to have a safe journey and to avoid carrying a significant sum of money. All he had to do, then, was to visit the banker with whom the Macedonian banker had a business relationship, hand-over a διαγραφή (a payment order), and receive the money destined for Paul. Although this possibility remains undiscussed by Fleury, it does merit some consideration and we shall return to this question in our seventh chapter. B. H. D. Hermesdorf, “De Apostel Paulus in lopende Rekening met de gemeente te Filippi,” TvT 1 (1961): 252–56. On the use of διαγραφή by ancient bankers, see Raymond Bogaert, Banques et banquiers dans les cités grecques (Leyde: A. W. Sijthoff, 1968), 57–60, 335–45; idem, “Note sur l’emploi du chèque dans l’Égypte Ptolémaïque,” in Trapezitica Aegyptiaca: Recueil de recherches sur la banque en Égypte gréco-romaine (Florence: Gonnelli, 1994), 252 (repr. from ChrEg 58 [1983]: 220); Jean Andreau, La vie financière dans le monde romain: Les métiers de manieurs d’argent (IVe siècle av. J.-C.–IIIe siècle ap. J.C) (Rome: École Française de Rome, 1987), 353–54. 100 Cf. Thilo, Codex, 217–21. 101 Cf. Andreau, La vie financière, 75, 477; idem, Banques, 92. 102 Fleury, “société,” 51 (emphasis added).

20

Chapter 1: Introduction

This deduction is far from obvious, however, since, generally speaking, the ledger of the societas and the personal accounts of its various socii would have been distinct, even though the vocabulary employed to designate them was similar. What Fleury may have meant is that any transaction made by the members to the account of the societas, i.e., either deposits or withdrawals, would have appeared in their respective tabulae as well, i.e., their codex accepti et expensi (if they were Roman patres familiae).103 Still, it is quite unlikely that the λόγος of 4:15 refers to a codex accepti et expensi, which appears to have become obsolete during the imperial period (or at least fades away from the sources),104 and which, to the best of our knowledge, remains unattested in Greek sources (which is understandable since its use was restricted to Roman citizens).105 Furthermore, it is not evident that Paul and each of the Philippians with whom he had formed a partnership, i.e., chacun des membres, owned enough assets (e.g., a private estate at least) to be required to keep a codex accepti et expensi. Yet this is not the place for us to discuss in detail the significance of the expression λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως, a question to which we shall return in our philological section. At this stage, it may be simply remarked that Fleury’s argumentation could have benefitted from a more extensive philological analysis of Paul’s accounting terminology and a more detailed discussion of the issues involved with each possible interpretation. Fourthly, Fleury’s explanations remain most unclear as to how and why Paul might have envisaged the profits of what, Fleury argued, was purely a joint business enterprise between him and Lydia to pay for his missionary expenses. He seems to have overlooked the fact that Paul considered his cooperation with the whole church, and not just with Lydia, to consist of a κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, and not a κοινωνία εἰς τὸ σκηνοποιόν, a κοινωνία εἰς τὴν πορφυροπωλικήν, or simply a κοινωνία εἰς τὴν κοινὴν τέχνην/ ἐργασίαν/ πραγµατείαν, whose benefits might have been divided between the partners. What is more, his suggestion that a deal was struck as soon as Paul entered Lydia’s house is hard to reconcile with the chronology of the events, as narrated by Paul, and the actual purpose of the partnership, 103

This is precisely why Cicero examined the codices of Verres’ socii in order to trace back payments made to and from the account of the societas (cf. Verr. 2.2.76). 104 See Thilo, Codex, 197–202; Andreau, Banques, 92. Cf. Leonhard who simply indicates without any further precision: “Späterhin kam die Führung des C. a. et e. gänzlich ab, nach einem Berichte des Ps.-Asconius (in Verr. p. 175 Or.).” R. Leonhard, “Codex accepti et expensi,” PW[1] 4:160–61. Interestingly, however, the codex was still known to Ausonius in A.D. IV (Grat. 5: accepti et expensi tabulae). Cf. Gérard Minaud, La comptabilité à Rome: Essai d’histoire économique sur la pensée comptable commerciale et privée dans le monde antique romain (Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, 2005), 135. 105 Minaud, La comptabilité, 129–34.

Chapter 1: Introduction

21

which seems to have come into effect from the time he left Macedonia (Phil 1:5), and not from the time he reached Philippi.106 Finally, and this is perhaps the most disappointing feature of Fleury’s work, he did not discuss the most fascinating aspect about the whole matter: the possible reasons for Paul’s adoption, and potential adaptation, of a business model to achieve his missionary objectives. Despite these few criticisms, and despite scholarship’s almost unanimous rejection of Fleury’s thesis, his contribution should not be dismissed too hastily and deserves due consideration. To date, it remains a suggestive explanation of Paul’s economic exchanges with the Philippians, one which genuinely attempts to grapple with the socio-economic realities of the firstcentury Roman world. For J. P. Sampley, our next scholar under review, Fleury certainly paved the way for him to reconsider Paul’s relationships with the communities he founded. 1.2.2 Paul’s societas Christi (J. P. Sampley) Following in the footsteps of Fleury, Sampley was the second modern scholar to explore the applicability of the Roman legal concept of societas to Paul’s dealings with the Philippians, a concept which, he argued, informed Paul’s understanding of κοινωνία. His primary aim was to experiment with Graeco-Roman sociological models, which Paul might have adapted to his ecclesiological and evangelistic agenda.107 To begin with, he sought to explain the expression (ἔδωκαν) δεξιὰς κοινωνίας in Galatians 2:9 as the establishment of a “consensual partnership of equals” between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders for the proclamation of the gospel.108 In a subsequent chapter, he then contended that Philippians gave evidence, “most clearly and consistently,” that Paul and the Philippians had “joined together in a consensual partnership in Christ for preaching the gospel,” that is, they had formed a “societas Christi.”109 The Philippians’ support acknowledged in 4:18 was thus nothing more than their reimbursement for work accomplished on behalf of the partnership.110 A similar agreement 106 Fleury resolved this difficulty by explaining that the second aorist verb in 4:15, ἐκοινώνησεν, referred to an action anterior to that evoked by the first aorist, ἐξῆλθον, and thus suggested the following translation: “quand je sortis de Macédoine, aucune église ne m’avait associé” (i.e., when I left Macedonia, no church had associated with me). Fleury, “société,” 47–48. 107 Sampley, Partnership, ix–x, 1–7. Cf. his programmatic essay: idem, “Societas Christi: Roman Law and Paul’s Conception of Christian Community,” in God’s Christ and His People: Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl (eds. J. Jervell and W. A. Meeks; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), 158–74. 108 Sampley, Partnership, 41. 109 Sampley, Partnership, 51. 110 Sampley, Partnership, 52–53.

22

Chapter 1: Introduction

may have also been formed between Paul and Philemon (cf. v. 17), he surmised, but he was at pains to demonstrate this “with any degree of certainty.”111 Nor could he identify any additional reference to similar partnerships in Paul’s other letters. Just as with Fleury, there is no question that Sampley succeeded in making an original contribution to the study of Paul’s relationship with the Philippians. Even though it has failed to convince the majority of scholars, his study remains an important step towards a better understanding of Paul’s missionary strategy. 112 The general disaffection with his thesis may actually be due to a number of weak points in his argumentation. First of all, Sampley hardly adduced any documentary evidence to support his overall case – documentary sources which, by his time, were already available in print at least. Indeed, he relied almost entirely on Cicero’s defence of the comedian Q. Roscius113 as well as, very sparingly, on classical (ca. A.D. 1–250), and post-classical (ca. A.D. 250–550),114 legal sources such as Gaius’ Institutes (A.D. II), or Justinian’s Codex and Digest (A.D. VI), which mostly consists of edited excerpts from classical jurists (cf. the introduction to the Dig., Constituo Deo auctore). The inherent difficulties of depending (almost solely) on Cicero, who was an advocate and not a punctilious jurist,115 and on post-classical juristic

111

Sampley, Partnership, 79. Cf. Ibid., 80–81. See the relevant footnote above at the beginning of section 1.2. 113 The speech preserves excerpts of Cicero’ defence of the famous actor Q. Roscius in an actio pro socio initiated by a certain C. Fannius. The details of the case are complex and not entirely clear. Fannius had formed a societas with Roscius to train and employ as a comedian a talented slave of his, Panurgus, who was later murdered by Q. Flavius of Tarquinii. Roscius prosecuted Flavius for the damage incurred. Before the trial commenced, however, the two came to a settlement and Roscius received a farm estate in compensation. Fannius later sued Roscius claiming that the settlement had been made on behalf of the societas and that he should therefore be given half of the estate. 114 The periodization of Roman law is slightly different from that in other disciplines of ancient history. The pre-classical period spans from 201 to 27 B.C. (or late A.D. I for Jolowicz and Nicholas), the classical period covers the first two-and-a-half centuries A.D., and the post-classical period extends from A.D. 250 to Justinian’s reign (A.D. IV). See H. F. Jolowicz and Barry Nicholas, Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law (3rd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 4–7; T. Honoré, “Law and Procedure, Roman,” OCD3, pp. 827–28. 115 In other words, “we should not take Cicero’s legal points at their face value but should always consider where Cicero’s interest lies – whether it is to make a rule broad or narrow, to stress or underestimate the heinousness of a charge, to declare or to conceal, and so on … Since Cicero was not a jurist, it is also not unlikely that at times his law is wrong. But on the other hand, we must remember he was a pupil of Quintus Mucius and so ought to have quite a good knowledge of the law.” Alan Watson, The Law of Obligations in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 125–26. Cf. 112

Chapter 1: Introduction

23

commentaries, which can alter or interpolate classical legal dispositions (at least in form, more than in substance),116 are well known to historians of Roman law, so that there is no need for us to expand on this issue in much detail.117 It is sufficient to mention that these sources, which may also contain imaginary cases,118 should always be compared to earlier documentary and (non-legal) literary evidence, when they exist, if they are to be employed to reconstruct the socio-legal reality of earlier centuries.119 A similar critique could generally be made concerning Sampley’s treatment of the so-called technical terms unusually concentrated in Philippians 4:10–20. Although he recognised these words to be “common in extant commercial documents,”120 he did not adduce any primary evidence that might have illustrated: a) in which kind of documents they appear (i.e., in which sociolegal settings); b) what connotation(s) they might take and what pragmatic function(s) they might perform in such documentary contexts.121 Instead, he mostly depended on lexical tools that have proven to be methodologically flawed, sometimes inaccurate, and greatly outdated (given the wealth

Alan Watson, The Spirit of Roman Law (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1995), 195–200. 116 See esp. Alan Watson, “Prolegomena to Establishing Pre-Justinianic Texts,” RHD 62.2 (1994): 113–26. Cf. David Johnston, Roman Law in Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 17–22; Jean-Jacques Aubert and Boudewijn Sirks, eds., Speculum iuris: Roman Law as a Reflection of Social and Economic Life in Antiquity (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2002), v–vi, 1. 117 Relating Republican evidence to post-classical evidence without considering the possible changes affecting both terminology and the Roman institutions themselves throughout the period is highly problematic in and of itself. See for instance John A. Crook, Law and Life of Rome, 90 B.C.–A.D. 212: Aspects of Greek and Roman Life (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967), 10–18; Thilo, Codex, 2 (esp. n. 7); Watson, “Prolegomena”; Watson, Spirit, 33–34; Johnston, Roman Law, 17–29; Olivia F. Robinson, The Sources of Roman Law: Problems and Methods for Ancient Historians (London: Routledge, 1997), 102–115. 118 It is, however, very difficult to say which, and how many, of these hypothetical cases there are. See Alan Watson, “Law Out of Context,” Edinburgh Law Review 4.2 (2000): 154–55; Johnston, Roman Law, 24; Jean-Jacques Aubert, “Conclusion: A Historian’s Point of View,” in Speculum Iuris: Roman Law as a Reflection of Social and Economic Life in Antiquity (eds. J. J. Aubert and B. Sirks; Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2002), 185–87. 119 In fact all four kinds of legal sources, i.e., legislation, juristic commentaries, literary sources, and documentary evidence, can, and indeed should, be queried. Cf. Crook, Law, 10–18; Watson, Spirit, 69; Robinson, Sources, 69–73, 115–27; Johnston, Roman Law, 13–14; Aubert, “Conclusion,” in Speculum Iuris (eds. Aubert and Sirks), 182–92. 120 Sampley, Partnership, 53. 121 See especially Sampley, Partnership, 53–55 (and accompanying footnotes).

24

Chapter 1: Introduction

of documentary sources uncovered in the past two centuries)122 – we shall return to this important point at the beginning of our second chapter. What is also problematic is Sampley’s underlying, yet unproven, assumption that κοινωνία corresponded to Roman societas (in the legal sense of the term),123 a conclusion which is far from evident, as G. H. R. Horsley was quick to observe.124 Equally questionable is the suggestion that the expression τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν (Phil 4:2) denoted the consensual disposition of the partners (in eodem sensu) required in any societas – this is certainly not the case in Romans 12:16 and 15:5–6, for instance.125 Here again, Sampley did not engage in a more thorough investigation of the primary sources, but only cited three major secondary references, which themselves do not present enough relevant evidence to support his claim.126 His casualness in this respect is rather surprising given that he himself recognised that “[n]ot every appearance of the term koinōnia is equivalent to the Latin societas.”127 This being said, Sampley’s assertion concerning the possible semantic equivalence between κοινωνία and societas (from a linguistic pragmatic point of view, at least) should not be dismissed too readily and will require further investigation on our part. Thirdly, and despite his best efforts to present the characteristic features of Roman societas in his second chapter, Sampley lacked clarity and precision in his definition and application of this legal concept. To begin with, he did not specify which type of consensual societas he thought Paul might have had in mind, i.e., whether it was: a) a societas unius rei (i.e., a partnership regarding a specific, commercial or non-commercial, transaction or course of action); b) a societas alicuius negotiationis (i.e., any kind of mercantile partnership, by far the most common type of societas); c) a societas omnium bonorum (a partnership in which all assets were held in common, likely “the oldest form of societas”);128 or d) a societas omnium bonorum quae ex quaestu ueniunt (a partnership “which involved a pooling of all assets deriving from business activity”).129 He merely indicated that his focus was on the kind of “consensual societas” which “depended not at 122 E.g., LSJ, MM, TDNT, BAGD. See Sampley, Partnership, 12–14, 45 (n. 26), 53, 73–74. 123 Sampley, Partnership, 12, 60–61. Cf. ibid., 18 (n. 7). 124 Horsley, NewDocs 3, 19, #4. Horsley did accept “some points of overlap” between the two, however. 125 Sampley, Partnership, 62–65. 126 Sampley only referenced entries on κοινωνία/κοινωνός in TDNT and MM, as well as Fleury’s essay. See Sampley, Partnership, 45 (n. 26). 127 Sampley, Partnership, 29. 128 Buckland, Text-Book, 513. 129 Zimmermann, Obligations, 454. For a brief description of each of these see also Buckland, Text-Book, 506–514; Berger, EDRL, s.v. societas, 708–709.

Chapter 1: Introduction

25

all on common bloodline”130 (such as the pre-classical ercto non cito / consortium, which seems to have evolved into a societas omnium bonorum; cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.154a–b).131 Indeed, he wished to concentrate on that which required “consent between or among persons who had no necessary family relationship,”132 that is, presumably, the classical and post-classical (A.D. I–VI) forms of societas mentioned above (societas omnium bonorum excepted, perhaps). In effect, Sampley entertained a certain ambiguity about what he designated as a societas Christi, suggesting that it never was “just one commercial partnership among others.”133 Rather, it was “a concrete relationship and obligation,” which “at the same time point[ed] beyond itself to God’s purposes.”134 Paul thus did not want to view the Philippians’ “gift-payment in response to his need-request” as “one more commercial partnership transaction.”135 For he “transpose[d] the transaction onto another level, into a larger vista, where it [could] now be seen in the context of Paul’s own conduct and God’s purposes in Christ.”136 At this stage, however, one fails to grasp how such transposition accords with the societas model Sampley has so painstakingly elaborated. Might it not have been simpler to suggest that Paul’s partnership with the Philippians constituted a societas unius rei, whose purpose was the preaching of the gospel, what might be termed a societas evangelii? Sampley’s proposed interpretive framework becomes even more problematic when he argues that, in addition to being the “foundation of socie130

Sampley, Partnership, 12. On the origins of consortium see Émile del Chiaro, Le contrat de société en droit romain (Paris: Sirey, 1928), 6–14. Cf. Émile Szlechter, Le contrat de société en Babylonie, en Grèce, et à Rome: Étude de droit comparé de l’Antiquité (Paris: Sirey, 1947), 165–81; Vincenzo Arangio-Ruiz, La società in diritto romano (Naples: Jovene, 2006), 3– 31; Berger, EDRL, s.v. consortium, 409. In a lengthy footnote (pp. 14–18, n.1), del Chiaro refutes the idea that societas omnium bonorum stemmed from consortium. Indeed, in his opinion: “On ne peut donc, semble-t-il, rapprocher ni la société ordinaire, ni la societas o. b., du consortium. Dans tous les cas la différence essentielle reste qu’au cas de société, le rapport qui unit les associés est un contrat, alors que le consortium est une situation purement successorale” (p. 18, n.1). One must keep in mind, however, that del Chiaro had no knowledge of a papyrus fragment (PSI XI 1182) published in 1935 which alludes to the origins of societas as a kind of partnership called ercto non cito, and which came to be included in Gaius, Inst. 3.154a. Cf. Francis de Zulueta, “The New Fragments of Gaius (PSI 1182),” JRS 24 (1934): 168–86; idem, “The New Fragments of Gaius, Part II: Societas Ercto Non Cito,” JRS 25 (1935): 19–32. 132 Sampley, Partnership, 12. 133 Sampley, Partnership, 54. 134 Sampley, Partnership, 54. 135 Sampley, Partnership, 55–56. 136 Sampley, Partnership, 56. 131

26

Chapter 1: Introduction

tas,” Christ is in fact “also preached as the goal of societas,” or that societas served as a model for the Philippians as to “how they should live together as partners in Christ.”137 It is indeed far from obvious that, as a consensual contract, societas was ever understood (and utilized) as a sociological model that could foster close and enduring relationships amongst its socii. It is questionable that a “strong sense of community,” “individual self-determination,” minimal “social stratification,” and “quasi-brotherly” relationships,138 were anticipated benefits of partnerships. Certainly, amicitia, which in archaic Rome probably entailed exchanges of goods and/or services, must have played an important role in the early developments of societas, which, much later, could still be considered as some sort of fraternitas (cf. Dig. 17.2.63. pr.).139 However, by the end of the Republic, friendship in societas may have become little more that a good moral precept. According to del Chiaro: “l’amicitia n’entraînera plus entre les amis qu’une simple union de fait.”140 Seneca’s blunt differentiation between his amici and socii rather suggests that, by the early empire, “l’amitié ne résidera plus que dans les cœurs.”141 This distinction between amici and socii appears to have emerged due to the different social and moral obligations and responsibilities placed respectively upon each. As del Chiaro further points out: “L’amicus se plie à des obligations morales et naturelles qui ne sont par elles-mêmes qu’une réalisation de son amitié, au contraire le socius s’est plus fortement engagé, il respecte la fides, il accomplit ce qu’il a promis.”142 One may further posit that the more conservative precepts of amicitia were being progressively eroded by the economic development of Rome and the ever-tightening grip of greed and luxury on Roman society. 143 The 137

Sampley, Partnership, 68. Sampley, Partnership, 106–108. 139 In fact, amitié and fraternité were foundational to the establishment of any kind of association or partnership in the ancient world. Cf. Szlechter, Le contrat, 2; del Chiaro, Le contrat, 18–25. 140 Del Chiaro, Le contrat, 19. 141 Del Chiaro, Le contrat, 20. Cf. Ben. 7.12.1: non enim mihi sic cum amico communia omnia sunt, quomodo cum socio, ut pars mea sit, pars illius. Trans. (Basore, LCL): “For I have all things in common with my friend, not as I would with a partner, when one share would belong to me, and another to him.” See also Cicero, Quinct. 4.26: etenim si veritate amicitia, fide societas, pietate propinquitas colitur. Trans. (Freese, LCL): “For if friendship is maintained by truth, partnership by good faith, relationship by affection.” 142 Del Chiaro, Le contrat, 21. Cf. Szlechter, Le contrat, 403. Verboven is nonetheless of the opinion that amicitia continued to play an important part in the formation of societas in the late Republic. Koenraad Verboven, The Economy of Friends: Economic Aspects of Amicitia and Patronage in the Late Republic (Bruxelles: Latomus, 2002), 279– 82. 143 Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, iii, 37. 138

Chapter 1: Introduction

27

creation of a legal action against a former partner, the actio pro socio, of which examples are preserved in Cicero’s Pro Q. Roscio comoedo and Pro Quinctio orations, and the penalty clauses of some partnership contracts observed in papyri, certainly illustrate the fact that socii could sometimes violate the terms of their agreement and act fraudulently towards one another. So the formation of societas should not be considered as a resort guaranteeing harmonious social relationships amongst partners. Rather, it is the consensual cooperation of the partners, the “gravitational center” of the societas, which initiated it and sustained it.144 In other words, the fraternity of socii was more of a prerequisite than a by-product of societas. Indeed, the stakes involved generally motivated “entrepreneurs to join forces with trustworthy socii, such as relatives and colleagues they had been doing business with for quite some time.”145 Consequently, it is quite difficult to envisage how “Paul may have co-opted societas as a way of expressing the nature and purpose of Christian life,” thereby making Christ “the goal of the societas” and the societas itself “a model of Christian community.”146 Not only does such a proposition seem incongruous with Paul’s ecclesiology, 147 but it also distorts quite significantly the intrinsic purpose and nature of societas as a consensual contract. While we do not wish to deny Paul’s adaptability vis-à-vis Graeco-Roman culture, it seems highly improbable that, out of all the models of community available to him, Paul would have chosen that of a business partnership to enhance the social and spiritual cohesion of his disciples. To conclude this review on a more positive note, we should reiterate the significance and originality of Sampley’s contribution to our understanding of Paul’s possible strategic adaptation of a Roman socio-legal convention. Along with Fleury, Sampley deserves to be acknowledged as one of the trail-blazers who provided much of the impetus and inspiration for the present study. Before going any further, however, we now ought to turn our attention to one of Sampley’s most recent and influential detractors, who has proposed a radically different understanding of the social dynamics at play between Paul and the Philippians.

144

Zimmermann, Obligations, 457. Wim Broekaert, “Joining Forces: Commercial Partnerships or societates in the Early Roman Empire,” Historia 61.2 (2012): 228. 146 Sampley, Partnership, x, 68, 112–13. 147 As Reumann has noted: “A ‘society of friends,’ Greco-Roman style, is not Pauline ecclesiology.” John Reumann, “Philippians, Especially Chapter 4, as a ‘Letter of Friendship’: Observations on a Checkered History of Scholarship,” in Friendship, Flattery and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World (ed. J. T. Fitzgerald; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 106. 145

28

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.2.3 Paul’s Paradigm of Social Reciprocity (G. W. Peterman) One last scholar who ought to receive our careful consideration is G. W. Peterman, who has studied at length Paul’s relationship with the Philippians, and who has offered an alternative interpretation of the significance of their contribution to the apostle. To be more precise, Peterman endeavoured to explicate Paul’s response to the Philippians in the light of the “social conventions which dictated the interaction between individuals in the Greco-Roman world,”148 i.e., social reciprocity, which was “embedded in all aspects of Greco-Roman society.”149 He also sought to assess “the extent to which the apostle Paul accepted or rejected these conventions,”150 and to address the “social reason” as to why he did not expressly write εὐχαριστῶ in his letter, but “gave such a laboured … response”151 – the socalled dankloser Dank of Philippians 4:10–20.152 Although he ultimately rejected Fleury and Sampley’s application of societas,153 his study deserves some attention as it represents a recent significant investigation of Paul’s socio-economic relationships with the Philippians.154 Furthermore, it constitutes an important contribution to the study of social reciprocity within the early church, which rightly emphasises the need to examine Paul’s apparent lack of gratitude from a first-century socio-cultural perspective. In chapters two and three, Peterman initially set out to establish an appropriate sociological framework for his study by turning to the evidence illustrating giving and receiving in Jewish and Graeco-Roman literature. 148

Peterman, Gift, 2. Peterman, Gift, 5. 150 Peterman, Gift, 195. 151 Peterman, Gift, 8. Cf. his earlier article “‘Thankless Thanks’”. The issue continues to puzzle scholars. See recently David E. Briones, “Paul’s Intentional ‘Thankless Thanks’ in Philippians 4.10–20,” JSNT 34 (2011): 47–69. For Baldanza, Paul cannot properly give thanks to the Philippians because of the nature of their contribution, which represents an ὀσµὴ εὐωδίας dedicated unto God. Baldanza, “La portata,” 171. 152 See Martin Dibelius, An die Philipper (HNT 11; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1937), 95; Lohmeyer, Philipper, 178; Joachim Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief (3rd ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1980), 173. The expression seems to have been first coined by C. Holsten in 1876 (non vidi). Cf. Berthold Mengel, Studien zum Philipperbrief: Untersuchungen zum situativen Kontext unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Frage nach der Ganzheitlichkeit oder Einheitlichkeit eines paulinischen Briefes (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1982), 283; Vincent, Philippians, 146. 153 Peterman, Gift, 123–27. 154 For example, Peterman’s work is positively acknowledged in Fee, Philippians, 446 (n. 31); P. A. Holloway, Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy (SNTSMS 112; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 156–57; and John Reumann, Philippians (AB 33B; New York: Doubleday, 2008), 688. Peterlin and Capper are slightly more critical of certain aspects of it. See Peterlin, Philippians, 208; Capper, “Dispute,” 208 (n. 33). 149

Chapter 1: Introduction

29

This enabled him to determine (what he deemed to be) a culturallycoherent model of social reciprocity, which he subsequently employed as an interpretive motif in his exegesis of Philippians 1–2, 4:10–20, Romans 15:25–31 and Philemon 17–19. In contrast with what S. Schwartz has more recently contended,155 Peterman argued that social reciprocity was as much prevalent in Jewish society as in Roman society, 156 in which relationships between patrons and clients, friends, or even family members, all fell under the spell of the convention.157 Yet, although he perceived Paul to be deeply influenced by Graeco-Roman social norms, he refused to consider him as slavishly bound to such cultural imperatives. Rather, Paul was free to apply his theological creativity and alter these conventions for the sake of the gospel,158 an interpretation which has since then received some support from J. R. Harrison’s work on Paul’s understanding of χάρις.159 His response in Philippians 4:10–20 was thus “deliberately crafted to teach the Philippians the proper meaning and significance of their gift,” and “to confront and correct some of the accepted Greek and Roman social conventions.”160 Peterman also drew attention to the transactional character of reciprocal obligations, which, according to him, signified that “terminology commonly found in commercial contexts to describe commercial transactions was also used in social contexts to describe the transactions of giving and receiving.”161 Consistently applying his interpretive paradigm to his exegesis in chapters four to six, Peterman then found social reciprocity to make particularly good sense of Paul’s commercial language and his interaction with the Philippians. He finally proposed that, through giving and receiving, “Paul and the Philippian congregation shared a unique relationship of partnership in the gospel.”162 Yet, contra Sampley, it did not equate it with the Roman legal idea of societas.163

155 Seth Schwartz, Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010). 156 According to Peterman, this is more evident in later Jewish literature (Philo, Josephus), which is indeed more hellenized in its outlook, rather than throughout the Hebrew Bible. Peterman, Gift, 50. 157 Peterman, Gift, 195–96. 158 Peterman, Gift, 159–60. Peterman thus concluded: “Paul’s ideology is informed by the Old Testament and, most importantly, by the gospel. Paul modifies the social expectations of his culture because the gospel is an overriding force which takes priority over the form of social reciprocity found in his culture.” Ibid., 199. 159 James R. Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context (WUNT 2.172; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). 160 Peterman, Gift, 121. 161 Peterman, Gift, 196. Cf. ibid., 88–89. 162 Peterman, Gift, 197. 163 Peterman, Gift, 123–27.

30

Chapter 1: Introduction

As already mentioned, Peterman’s contribution to the field of Pauline studies has been significant and influential. His efforts to examine “ancient documents in order to establish … the common conventions … of social interaction in the first century” are certainly commendable.164 Nevertheless, his study presents a number of concerns. First of all, Peterman’s investigation of ancient documents fails to be as comprehensive as it should, and focuses on literary sources in a very unbalanced fashion (as is obvious from his index).165 It depends on a limited mixture of Jewish and nonJewish, Greek and Latin, texts from a disparate range of sources such as the Hebrew Bible, Josephus, Seneca, Plato, or Aristotle, whilst, surprisingly, it neglects Cicero’s letters or Pliny’s correspondence with Trajan.166 This over-reliance on literary evidence is methodologically prejudicial on two counts. First of all, Peterman seems to have considered as philologically relevant one large lump of Greek and Latin materials ranging from V B.C. to A.D. III without showing any appreciation for the linguistic development of post-classical Greek, or for the philosophers’ peculiar usage of words and their associated concepts. Secondly, Peterman did not seem to take into account the fact that literary sources can often be problematic when seeking to reconstruct the socio-cultural reality of the ancient world.167 Classicists and ancient historians know well that apart from popular works by authors such as Plautus, Petronius, Martial, Juvenal, Vitruvius, or Apuleius168 – all of whom wrote mostly satirical Latin compositions – or Greek works by authors such as Aesop, Galen, Lucian of Samosata, or Artemidorus,169 most ancient literature does not adequately depict the life of the lower echelons of society and can too often reinforce the prejudices and

164

Peterman, Gift, 3. Peterman herein seems to differ from ancient historians in his understanding of what constitutes a document (i.e., papyri, ostraca, tablets, inscriptions, but not literary texts). 166 These do get a mention, albeit extremely briefly, on pp. 63–64, 71, and 86–87. 167 Cf. Michel Dubuisson, “La vie quotidienne à Rome: Considérations intempestives,” Pomoerium 4 (2000–2002): 89–99. 168 Veyne, D’Arms, Millar, and Marache, among others, have highlighted the sociohistorical value of such literature (but see Dubuisson referred above). Paul Veyne, “Vie de Trimalcion,” Annales 16.2 (1961): 213–47; John H. D’Arms, Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), 97–120; Fergus Millar, “The World of The Golden Ass,” JRS 71 (1981): 63–75; René Marache, “Juvénal – peintre de la société de son temps,” ANRW 33.1:592–639. 169 This list does not claim to be comprehensive, but merely illustrative. For more references see Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), 19–27. Cf. William Hansen, Anthology of Ancient Greek Popular Literature (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998). 165

Chapter 1: Introduction

31

cultural values of the male aristocracy, 170 those N. Horsfall calls the “archsnobs.”171 This is especially true of the plebs living at, or slightly above, subsistence level, who remain conspicuously absent from the literary, and often archaeological, record, and who may be cast in a different light in the epigraphic and papyrological sources.172 This problem is particularly acute in the case of Jewish texts, which tend to “conceal the social and cultural conditions that produced them behind a shimmering … veil of biblicism, archaism, [and] classicism.”173 This fact, of course, does not completely discredit the use of ancient literature, as F. Dupont has compellingly demonstrated in her literary tour de force on daily life in Roman times.174 However, Peterman seems to have underestimated the complexity of these issues and, to our mind, did not satisfactorily explicate why, and how, the social conventions he brought into focus should be thought to have applied to “all levels of [Graeco-Roman and Jewish] society,” includ170 This was already grasped by Deissmann who saw his work “as a protest against overestimating the worth of the literary evidence.” See Gustav A. Deissmann, “The New Testament: In the Light of Recently Discovered Texts of the Græco-Roman World,” ExpTim 18 (1906): 9–10. More recently, Meggitt has also brought this issue to the attention of NT scholars. See Meggitt, Paul, 18–39; idem, “Sources: Use, Abuse, Neglect: The Importance of Ancient Popular Culture,” in Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church (eds. E. Adams and D. G. Horrell; London: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 241–53. Cf. Robert Knapp, Invisible Romans (London: Profile Books, 2011), 2, 5, 317–24. Other important studies of Roman popular culture include Jerry Toner, Popular Culture in Ancient Rome (Cambridge: Polity, 2009). 171 Nicholas Horsfall, The Culture of the Roman Plebs (London: Bristol Classical Press, 2003), 27. 172 Four important epigraphic case studies illustrating this fact are Sandra R. Joshel, Work, Identity, and Legal Status at Rome: A Study of the Occupational Inscriptions (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992); Onno M. van Nijf, The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1997); Nicolas Tran, Les membres des associations romaines: Le rang social des collegiati en Italie et en Gaule sous le haut empire (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2006); idem, Dominus tabernae: Le statut de travail des artisans et des commerçants de l’Occident romain (Ier siècle av. J.-C.–IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.) (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2013). See also the valuable study by Flohr. Miko Flohr, The World of the Fullo: Work, Economy, and Society in Roman Italy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). 173 In a sense, our sources preclude us from fully comprehending “how ancient Jewish society and culture really worked, outside the center, and outside the minds of the priestly and scribal authors.” Schwartz, Jews, 4–5. 174 Florence Dupont, La vie quotidienne du citoyen romain sous la République (Paris: Hachette, 1989). Forsdyke has attempted a similar task by drawing snippets of popular culture from the literary record (see esp. her introduction for the methodology employed). Sara Forsdyke, Slaves Tell Tales: And Other Episodes in the Politics of Popular Culture in Ancient Greece (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012). Cf. F. Gerald Downing, “A Bas Les Aristos: The Relevance of Higher Literature for the Understanding of the Earliest Christian Writings,” NovT 30.3 (1988): 212–30; Knapp, Romans, 317–24.

32

Chapter 1: Introduction

ing to that of Paul and the Philippians.175 At the very least, he should have recognised that a Stoic philosopher like Seneca, on which he derives his understanding of social reciprocity, is all but one ideological and cultural indicator of ancient social conventions (within a very specific sociopolitical context),176 whose precepts would need to be thoroughly examined against a much wider range of literary and documentary evidence from the same period before they can be considered universal.177 Wouldn’t most of us indeed laugh at the (ludicrous) thought that, 2,000 years from now, historians might turn to a Victorian manual of British propriety to reconstruct the social interactions of ordinary Europeans between the eighteenth and twenty-first centuries? Peterman’s lack of consideration for the possible socio-cultural differences between Palestinian and Diasporic Jews,178 or between Greeks and Romans, is also problematic for it assumes that Mediterranean society remained characterised by a sort of homogeneous cultural matrix over the span of half a millennium. This sort of reconstruction leads to the false impression that the Mediterranean world was a static socio-cultural environment. However, the absence of a patronage system similar to that of the Romans in the Ancient Near East and Classical Greece,179 the differences between Roman amicitia and Greek φιλία,180 or the radical cultural (and

175

Peterman, Gift, 88. Cf. Miriam Griffin, “De Beneficiis and Roman Society,” JRS 93 (2003): 102–112. For a recent examination of ideological differences between Paul and Seneca, see Thomas R. Blanton IV, “The Benefactor’s Account-book: The Rhetoric of Gift Reciprocation According to Seneca and Paul,” NTS 59.3 (2013): 396–414. 177 In the remainder of his third chapter, Peterman does attempt to adduce “[o]ther texts from literary and non-literary sources … to support or supplement aspects of social practice drawn from Seneca” (p. 51), but his deductions, especially the philological ones, are far from convincing, as we demonstrate below. Cf. Peterman, Gift, 51–89. 178 Cf. Barclay’s comprehensive and multi-faceted survey of the Jews in the Diaspora during the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). 179 No unequivocal evidence has been found concerning the Ancient Near East (the topic itself has been neglected by Orientalists). See Raymond Westbrook, “Patronage in the Ancient Near East,” JESHO 48 (2005): 210–33. The question is more complex regarding ancient Greece but need not concern us here. See for instance Paul C. Millett, “Patronage and its Avoidance in Classical Athens,” in Patronage in Ancient Society (ed. A. Wallace-Hadrill; London: Routledge, 1989), 15–47; Nijf, Civic World, 78–79. On the question of reciprocity in ancient Greece, see for example Christopher Gill, Norman Postlethwaite, and Richard Seaford, eds., Reciprocity in Ancient Greece (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). 180 Cf. Craig A. Williams, Reading Roman Friendship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 32. 176

Chapter 1: Introduction

33

political) transformation of Roman society in the late Republican period,181 should have made him more cautious in generalizing such complex sociocultural realities. We do not wish to deny that certain cultural norms, such as social reciprocity, were common to many ancient societies, but it must not always be presumed that these manifested themselves in similar ways throughout the Mediterranean world, or that they were distinctive of Mediterranean peoples only. 182 The works of P. Veyne and P. Gauthier, for instance, have well illustrated the notable evolution of euergetism through the Classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods.183 Galilee and Judea may not have been (rural) patronal societies at all, or at least patronage may have been much more diffused there.184 Therefore, the question posed by S. Schwartz concerning ancient Jews remains one to be pondered: “To what extent were Jews, in their social relations, discourse, imagination, and even cultural practice, ‘normal’ inhabitants of the ancient Mediterranean world?”185 Unfortunately, Peterman’s rather simplistic treatment of Jewish literature underestimated the intricacy of these questions. It overlooked what Schwartz has perceived as the “Torah’s utopian antireciprocity,” which aimed to establish “a more or less reciprocity-free society” and ensure the “corporate solidarity” of Israel through charitable attitudes.186 Indeed, as Schwartz has contended, “it is 181 See Wallace-Hadrill’s magisterial treatment. Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). 182 On the moot questions of Mediterraneanism and of the cultural unity and distinctiveness of Mediterranean societies, see Peregrine Horden and Nicholas Purcell, The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History (Malden: Blackwell, 2000), 461–523. Cf. W. V. Harris, ed., Rethinking the Mediterranean (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 26–29, 45–63; Schwartz, Jews, 21–44. Even proponents of sociological methodologies have recognised the dangers of over-emphasising the cultural homogeneity of the Mediterranean world. See David G. Horrell, ed., Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999), 15. 183 They fail to agree on the modalities of this evolution, however. Paul Veyne, Le pain et le cirque: Sociologie historique d’un pluralisme politique (Paris: Seuil, 1976); Philippe Gauthier, Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (BCHSup 12; Paris: de Boccard, 1985). 184 Goodman is adamant: “The relationship between patron and client which was fundamental in, for instance, Roman culture was not found among Jews.” Martin Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome (A.D. 66–70) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 67. Schwartz somewhat nuances what he considers to be an overstatement on behalf of Goodman, and argues for a progressive disintegration of the patronage system from the A.D. 50s onwards. See Seth Schwartz, “Josephus in Galilee: Rural Patronage and Social Breakdown,” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (eds. F. Parente and J. Sievers; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 290–306. 185 Schwartz, Jews, 5. 186 Schwartz, Jews, 18, 20.

34

Chapter 1: Introduction

remarkably difficult to find any positive valuation of human-human reciprocity in biblical texts, except sporadically in wisdom literature.”187 Peterman seems to have given little thought to the socio-cultural history of ancient Jews, whom Schwartz has depicted “as adherents of a strongly antireciprocal normative system,” and whose history, he has argued, has been all about attempting to “cope with life in a world in which institutionalized reciprocity was very hard indeed to escape.”188 What is more, Peterman seems to have shown no consideration for the possibility that, as Schwartz’ study of Sirach, Josephus, and the Palestinian Talmud, has rather persuasively suggested, Jews may have adopted a variety of accommodative attitudes at different times and locations (rather than following a uniform pattern).189 Yet, what gives us most grievance with Peterman’s work is his rather cavalier philological approach and his inadequate coverage of the documentary evidence (i.e., papyrological and epigraphic sources), which, it is true, he did not altogether ignore, but which he treated in a very sporadic and limited fashion. Relevant materials are indeed too often relegated to the footnotes and are too rarely and briefly expounded in the text. This is particularly evident throughout pages 77–87, in which he adduced several papyri that suggested “a correlation between the friendship of the correspondents and the lack of verbal thanks,” and which may have helped explain Paul’s apparent lack of verbal gratitude in Philippians.190 His handling of the issue provides a good illustration of his tendency to overgeneralise, on the basis of a limited sample of primary sources, what could well be isolated phenomena.191 A basic search of the DDbDP (Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri) alone returns more than 200 results for the verb εὐχαριστέω (or ἀπευχαριστέω/ ὑπερευχαριστέω),192 in contrast with the

187

Schwartz, Jews, 7. Schwartz, Jews, 19. 189 Schwartz, Jews, 32. Cf. Tzvi Novick, “Charity and Reciprocity: Structures of Benevolence in Rabbinic Literature,” HTR 105.1 (2012): 33–52. 190 Peterman, Gift, 51–89 (citation on p. 78). 191 Peterman’s key text is a piece of correspondence between two Egyptian physicians in which one asserts that he has no need to express exceeding thanks since verbal thanksgiving is only required amongst those who are not friends: γράφειν δέ̣ σοι µεγάλας εὐχαριστίας παρετέο̣ (ν)·δεῖ γὰρ τοῖς µὴ φίλοις οὖσι διὰ λόγων εὐχαριστεῖν (ll. 6–9; P.Mert. I 12, A.D. 58–59). Positing the hypothesis (amongst others) that “verbal gratitude is misplaced in friendships of equity” (p. 77), Peterman then proceeds to assess his proposition in the light of twenty-five similar documents. See Peterman, Gift, 73–83. 192 E.g., BGU II 531 (A.D. 75–85), P.Oxy. II 396 (A.D. I), SB III 6823 (A.D. 41–54), BGU III 843 (A.D. I–II). To be more exact, in March 2013, it returned 247 results, 39 of which corresponded to the name Εὐχαριστεία or Εὐχαρίστος, while a few other readings had been restored by the edd. pr. 188

Chapter 1: Introduction

35

twenty-six documents Peterman referenced.193 A search of the PHI (Packard Humanities Institute) database produces just as many, if not more, instances, which, if they were examined one by one carefully would probably confirm L. Robert’s identification of a thanksgiving pattern in honorific inscriptions (e.g., εὐχαριστῶ τινι, i.e., a benefactor, in addition to the εὐχαριστῶ/ εὐχαριστοῦµεν τῷ θεῷ formula commonly found in votives dating from the imperial era).194 We need not labour the point that Peterman’s assertion that “expressions of gratitude employing εὐχαριστέω (or cognates) are uncommon” is questionable and calls for a much more extensive survey of the evidence.195 A complete reconsideration of the issue is further demanded by the common occurrence of the phrase (cui) gratias ago in Latin literary sources (including Cicero and Seneca).196 Another of Peterman’s claims that is problematic is his conclusion that “verbal gratitude in written form was not a social expectation, except when writing to someone who was socially superior.”197 It is unclear to us what Peterman understood by socially superior or inferior, and we shall assume that he had in mind a difference of status according to the Roman ordines. In which case, the letter P.Amh. II 133 (early A.D. II), in which a son gives thanks to his father for sending news about his health (εὐχαριστῶ σοι ὅτι ἐδήλωσάς µοι {ς}τὴν ὑγείαν σου, ll. 2–4),198 or Cicero’s reply to S. Sulpicius Rufus, the once-consul, illustrious jurist and counterpart of Q. Mucius Scaevola (cf. Dig. 1.2.43–44), in which he profusely expresses his gratitude (gratias tibi ago) to his friend whom he praises for accepting 193 Only four of these contained expressions of verbal gratitude. Peterman deliberately left out documents post A.D. III as well as “those which mention goods or money received as payments for rents, taxes, loans or other goods” on the assumption that “those letters which record private affairs will more closely parallel the Philippian letter than those recording commercial transactions.” This is an unfortunate omission. Since Philippians contains terminology common to commercial documents, they could have easily provided suggestive comparative examples. Peterman, Gift, 77 (n. 80). 194 See L. Robert, Hellenica 10 (1955): 58–62. 195 Peterman, Gift, 83. 196 E.g., Cicero, Phil. 2.14 (thanking M. Antonius, in a somewhat ironic tone); idem, Marcell. 34 (thanking Caesar for his clemency towards M. Claudius Marcellus); Seneca, Lucil. 40.1 (thanking Lucilius for his frequent letters); Pliny the Younger, Ep. 4.17, 6.3, 6.16, 9.18, 9.24, 9.28, 9.35, 10.56. The LTT-A delivers thirty-eight results prior to A.D. 200 for the expression gratias ago alone. Here again, a detailed study of each instance would be necessary to establish more accurately social conventions of thanksgiving. 197 Peterman, Gift, 83. Peterman’s negative assertion would perhaps be less exclusive, and thus more accommodating to cultural variations, if reformulated as a positive general affirmation: verbal gratitude in written form was a social expectation when writing to someone who was socially superior. 198 Cf. John L. White, Light from Ancient Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 106, #107.

36

Chapter 1: Introduction

favourably his letters of recommendation (Fam. 13.28), would alone be sufficient to challenge Peterman’s premise.199 For in both cases there is little doubt that the individuals involved belonged to the same ordo. Another telling example of Peterman’s methodological myopia, to borrow J. Meggitt’s expression,200 is his biased dismissal of the so-called financial technical terms Paul employs in his letters to the Philippians and to Philemon (Phil 4:15–19; Phlm 18–19). For example, he dismissed the generally accepted economic sense of (προσ-)ὀφείλω (with its inherent sense of obligation or indebtedness),201 and questioned the “ubiquitous reference” of ἐλλογέω (or ἐλλογάω)202 as a “commercial technical term,”203 even though it clearly pertains to accounting terminology. 204 He ignored the 199

Cicero is particularly reverential and laudatory in his eulogy of Sulpicius (Phil. 9), but both the genre of the oration and the occasion itself required it. Elsewhere, he addresses him as a man of unequal wisdom (sapientia praeditus prope singulari; Fam. 4.3), which is suggestive of the profound respect he held towards him. Yet, none of this necessarily indicates that Cicero might have regarded Sulpicius as his social superior (nothing transpires in Sulpicius’ two letters to Cicero either; cf. Fam. 4.5, 4.12). Cf. F. Münzer and P. Kübler, “Sulpicius (Rufus),” PW[2] 7:851–60, #95; Ernst Badian, “Sulpicius Rufus, Servius,” OCD3, p. 1455. 200 Meggitt, Paul, 1. 201 Cf. LSJ, s.v. ὀφείλω; MM, s.v. ὀφείλω; BDAG, s.v. ὀφείλω; L&N, s.v. ὀφείλω 57.219; Muraoka, Lexicon, s.v. ὀφείλω; EDNT 2:551, s.v. ὀφείλω. Cf. Deissmann, BS, 221, 225; idem, LAE, 331; Émile Benveniste, Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes (2 vols.; Paris: Minuit, 1969), 1:195. The verb is used in a more formulaic fashion (i.e., ὁµολογῶ ὀφείλειν καὶ χρεωστεῖν) in χειρόγραφα from late antiquity (e.g., P.NYU II 25; BGU XII 2185; P.Cair.Masp. II 67127; P.Cair.Masp. III 67310). See Taubenschlag, LGRE, 339 (n. 6). 202 Paul adopts the -άω form in Phlm 18, but the -έω in Rom 5:13. There also exist the 2 variants ἐλλόγει for Philm 18 (D Ψ 1739. 1881 ) and ἐλλογάτο (A), ἐλλογάται (ℵ1 ∗ 1881), and ἐνελογείτο (ℵ ) for Rom 5:13. Blass explains the -άω form found in Koine due to a confusion of the inflections -εῖν and -ᾶν. See Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (15th rev. ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), §90, p. 66. Cf. Robertson, Grammar, 73. 203 Peterman, Gift, 187–88. Peterman had the cheek of reproaching C. J. Martin for relying on Hauck and Preisker’s entries in TDNT and for not providing “evidence for the primary sources,” when he himself made no attempt to do so. 204 The definition given in BDAG, i.e., “to charge with a financial obligation, charge to the account of someone,” is not entirely accurate since, at its most basic lexical level, the term simply conveys the idea of recording something (e.g., a financial transaction, a delivery, a measurement, etc.) into an account, viz., ἐν + λογέω = ἐν λόγῳ τιθέναι (cf. the land arbitration in IG IX 1.61, A.D. 118; PSI I 92, ca. A.D. 258). See BDAG, s.v. ἐλλογέω. Cf. LSJ, s.v. ἐλλογάω; Preisigke, WB 1:771; H. Preisker, TDNT 2:516–17; DGE, s.v. ἐλλογάω (accessed December 2012; online: http://dge.cchs.csic.es/xdge/ ἐλλογάω); DGE, s.v. ἐλλογέω (accessed December 2012; online: http://dge.cchs.csic.es/ xdge/ἐλλογέω); Peter Arzt-Grabner, Philemon (PKNT 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 238–40.

Chapter 1: Introduction

37

overwhelming body of evidence testifying to the economic sense of ἀποτίνω (i.e., to pay or to repay),205 missing its well-established formulaic usage in legal penalty clauses (Strafklauseln) in papyri and inscriptions.206 He gave no consideration to the possible economic connotation of κοινωνcognates, which we shall explore in our fifth chapter, and overlooked the well-attested formulaic usage of ἀπέχω.207 Similarly, he did not provide any documentary evidence for the expression εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως, which, he claimed, pertained to wellestablished giving and receiving terminology. Initially, he only examined the well-known example found in Sirach 41:19d208 (αἰσχύνεσθε ἀπὸ σκορακισµοῦ λήµψεως καὶ δόσεως),209 whose context is admittedly rather obscure.210 Then, he treated in appendix the more explicit mention found in Sirach 42:7, the passage which perhaps sheds the most light on the phrase itself, and which, he himself acknowledged, “plainly makes … reference to a commercial financial transaction.”211 Shunning traditional philological 205

Cf. LSJ, s.v. ἀποτίνω; Preisigke, WB 1:265–66; DGE, s.v. ἀποτίνω I. (accessed December 2012; online: http://dge.cchs.csic.es/xdge/ἀποτίνω); BDAG, s.v. ἀποτίνω; MM, s.v. ἀποτίνω; L&N, s.v. ἀποτίνω 57.156; Muraoka, Lexicon, s.v. ἀποτίνω. 206 We found the verb used in such a way in 85% of the papyri (i.e., 300/350 instances) and in 50% of the inscriptions (i.e., 200/400 instances) that we examined, which consisted of a large variety of contractual documents (e.g., loan agreements, leases, sale deeds, testaments, private letters, accounts, petitions, apprenticeship contracts, manumission records, decrees or laws, etc.). The formula usually begins with a protasis introduced by ἐὰν (µή), or εἰ (µή), which is followed by a brief caution against the infringement not to commit, and an apodosis with a form of ἀποτίνω and a description of the financial penalties to be paid (e.g., a fine, added interests, the seizure of the mortgaged property, etc.). Allowing for a few variances, the Strafklausel is usually as follows: ἐὰν δὲ µὴ ἀποδῷ/ἀποδῶσι (καθὰ γέγραπται) ἀποτ(ε)ισάτω/ἀποτ(ε)ισάτωσαν τινα τῷ δεῖνι (e.g., P.Corn. 6; BGU III 910; BGU III 709; P.Genova I 22; P.Mil. II 57; P.Mich. III 187; P.Mich. V 323; FD 3.6.108; GDI 2.2012; IG IX 1.34; IKosSegre 215). For a brief explanation and a list of examples of similar Strafklauseln in papyri, see Dieter Hennig, Untersuchungen zur Bodenpacht im ptolemäisch-römischen Ägypten (Munich: München Universität, 1967), 74–77, 91–98. 207 Peterman, Gift, 40, 47. 208 It may appear as v. 21 in some versions due to verse numbering inconsistencies with this work. Cf. Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, eds., The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987), xi. 209 Peterman, Gift, 41–42. 210 It is very difficult to determine what the author has in mind by ἀπὸ σκορακισµοῦ λήµψεως καὶ δόσεως in this long list of matters about which to be ashamed. The Hebrew text is somewhat different and translated by Skehan thus: (be ashamed) “Of refusing to give when asked.” Skehan and Di Lella, eds., Wisdom, 476. Taken in its wider context, however, Sirach does seem to grapple with the social tensions that reciprocity, gift-exchange, and benefaction, placed upon Jews living in the Hellenistic period. See Schwartz, Jews, 44–79. 211 Peterman, Gift, 207.

38

Chapter 1: Introduction

work, which he deemed to be “not sufficient to explain the meaning of giving and receiving [i.e., δόσις καὶ λῆµψις] in the Greco-Roman world,”212 Peterman then proposed “to use Seneca’s De beneficiis as a guide,”213 which he supplemented with texts from Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Epictetus, Philo, and Plutarch, in order to define more precisely the “semantic field” of the phrase δόσις καὶ λῆµψις and other similar expressions.214 Once again, he hardly adduced any relevant philological evidence that might have illustrated the meaning and use of this expression in Koine. Nevertheless, he confidently asserted that “δόσις καὶ λῆµψις is not a technical phrase referring invariably to commercial transactions,”215 but “was commonly used to refer to social reciprocity”216 – a claim which we will refute in our third and seventh chapters. Following P. Marshall, who had understood the phrase ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως as “an idiomatic expression indicating friendship,”217 Peterman concluded that it constituted “a social metaphor denoting friendship,” “a Christian appellation for financial fellowship in missionary work.”218 Thus, he suggested that, more generally, Paul’s “commonly called technical financial terms need[ed] not be understood in a financial way,” but “[could] be taken in a social way.”219 Herein Peterman failed to recognise that what gives a financial connotation to the expression εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως is not the collocation of δόσις and λῆµψις, two substantives which derive from two of the most common verbs in Greek, δίδωµι and λαµβάνω, but the prepositional phrase εἰς λόγον on which the two genitives δόσεως and λήµψεως depend. Had he conducted a more thorough philological analysis of the documentary sources, he would have realised that the expression εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως is best understood as a ledger, an account of credit and debit operations, just as the translator(s) of the Vulgate and several commentators later seem to have recognised. As it should have now become obvious, Peterman’s survey of Paul’s commercial language in the light of abstract philosophical discussions

212

Peterman, Gift, 53. Peterman, Gift, 51. 214 Peterman, Gift, 52. 215 Peterman, Gift, 65. 216 Peterman, Gift, 66. 217 Marshall, Enmity, 163. 218 Peterman, Gift, 8, 199. It is rather incongruous to designate the phrase (ἐκοινώνησεν) εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως as Christian on the basis of a philological survey that solely examined non-Christian texts. 219 Peterman, Gift, 125 (cf. n. 23). 213

Chapter 1: Introduction

39

leaves much to be desired.220 It is unfortunately quite symptomatic of his shortsighted philological methodology, which relies on the sole assumption (which he is desperate to demonstrate) that commercial terminology could be used in contexts dealing with social reciprocity. However, this argument is hardly convincing and could easily be turned around: it is not because terms denoting friendship (e.g., φίλος), or kinship (e.g., ἀδελφός), appear in business contexts that they necessarily acquire a commercial connotation. Furthermore, Peterman’s insistence on a sharp distinction between what is social and what is economic is quite artificial and is rather incongruent with his initial approval of W. Donlan’s assertion that, “in ancient societies, there is an economic element in every social relationship and a social element in every economic relationship.”221 Introducing a dichotomy between social reciprocity and business interaction, or between friendship and commercial partnership, ultimately leads to an inadequate appreciation of the social reality of the ancient world. Even Aristotle acknowledged that friendship and business cooperation were not mutually exclusive: the former can undergird the latter (as in societas), and the latter generate the former, albeit in a utilitarian way (Eth. nic. 8.9.1; 8.14.1). As P. Millett’s study of lending and borrowing in ancient Athenian society has clearly demonstrated, both friendship and social reciprocity played an important part in socio-economic interaction, including money-lending, from the times of Hesiod onwards.222 In sum, Peterman’s study inevitably leaves the careful reader with the impression that his deductions are the result of a very selective treatment of semi-relevant data, rather than a rigorous socio-historical and philological investigation.223 While the emphasis on Paul’s social context is entirely legitimate, it gives scholars no warrant to do away with preliminary, meticulous philological work (of which, for reasons that still escape us, he seemed overly suspicious).224 On this basis, one may conclude that 220

It is quite remarkable, to say the least, that his work on the collocation δόσις καὶ λῆµψις should come to be referenced in a standard lexicon such as BDAG. See BDAG, s.v. λῆµψις. 221 Peterman, Gift, 5 (citing Walter Donlan, “Reciprocities in Homer,” CW 75.3 [1982]: 139). Cf. Peterman, Gift, 25, 146–51, 155–57. 222 See Paul C. Millett, Lending and Borrowing in Ancient Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Cf. David Konstan, Friendship in the Classical World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 78–82; idem, “Reciprocity and Friendship,” in Reciprocity in Ancient Greece (eds. C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite, and R. Seaford; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 279–301. 223 In a footnote, Peterman admits having omitted documents “which mention goods or money received as payment for rents, taxes, loans or other goods.” Had he not done so, he might have discovered in such documents many of the terms Paul also uses. See Peterman, Gift, 77 (n. 80). 224 See Peterman, Gift, 15, 53, 197.

40

Chapter 1: Introduction

Peterman falls under the very same criticism which he expressed towards earlier exegetes who were, allegedly, “led to only a few selected texts.”225 His conclusion that the “commonly received view [as to the meaning of Paul’s economic language] has been shown [by his study] to be patently false,” can therefore only be said, charitably, to be grossly exaggerated.226 Overall, Peterman has contributed little to our understanding of the actual significance of the technical business terminology Paul uses in his letters, and, by implication, to our understanding of the socio-economic nature of his relationship with the Philippians (amongst others). This is the task we shall apply ourselves to accomplish in the rest of this study. 1.2.4 Recent Treatises on Paul’s Financial Policy We may conclude our review of the history of scholarship on Paul’s economic partnerships by acknowledging briefly two dissertations which were produced subsequently to Peterman’s study227: D. C. Datiri’s unpublished thesis entitled Finances in the Pauline Churches (1996), and D. E. Briones’ recently published socio-theological study of Paul’s financial policy (2013).228 We need not review in detail Datiri’s survey, however, since it contributed little to our understanding of Paul’s economic interaction with the Philippians. Indeed, Datiri did not seek to explicate the significance of Paul’s business language in Philippians 4:15–20 (as is plainly apparent from his exegesis of the passage), and merely reiterated, in somewhat nuanced fashion, earlier conclusions by G. Theissen, R. F. Hock, P. Marshall, P. T. O’Brien, G. W. Peterman, or even J. P. Sampley. Furthermore, his position on the nature of Paul’s relationship with the Philippians remained quite indecisive. On the one hand, he rejected Sampley’s overall interpretation. On the other hand, he completed his exegesis of Philippians by concluding: “Indeed, he regarded them [the Philippians] as partners with him in his work. In fact, it seems there was a definite agreement between the apostle and this congregation about sharing in Paul’s apostolic work.”229 As we shall later argue, it is questionable whether, from a firstcentury Roman perspective at least, Paul would have regarded the Philippians (or anyone else) as his partners in his missionary work and not conceive of their (mutual) definite agreement (to cooperate) as some type of societas. Also illegitimate is Datiri’s claim that his reading of 1 and 2 Co225

Peterman, Gift, 197. Peterman, Gift, 197. 227 Peterman’s volume was a revision of his doctoral dissertation submitted at King’s College London in 1992. See Peterman, Gift, ix. 228 Briones, Financial Policy. 229 Datiri, “Finances,” 165–66, 183 (emphasis added). 226

Chapter 1: Introduction

41

rinthians and Philippians expands and improves Marshall or Peterman’s theses (on the grounds that it takes into account Paul’s pastoral concerns and that it considers Paul’s understanding of the gospel to be altering Graeco-Roman social conventions), since both Marshall and Peterman had made similar suggestions.230 These critics aside, one might still find some valuable information in Datiri’s first section on the management of finances within households, synagogues, voluntary associations, and Hellenistic schools, the basic social units identified by W. A. Meeks as potential sociological models for the early church.231 It is equally superfluous for us to offer a thorough critical review of D. E. Briones’ recent dissertation, for it is mainly concerned with solving the quandary of Paul’s seemingly inconsistent financial policy vis-à-vis the Corinthians and the Philippians, dedicating only one (lengthy) chapter to Philippians.232 Like Datiri, Briones has shown little interest in Paul’s business terminology, 233 but has striven to explain the nature of his relationship with the Philippians within “a three-way pattern of exchange … which envisions God as the source of the gift, the Philippians as the mediator or broker, and Paul as the beneficiary.”234 Furthermore, a detailed critique of Briones’ thesis would reiterate some of the criticisms that we raised against Peterman, whom Briones somewhat followed by taking Seneca’s De beneficiis as a point of reference for interpreting Paul’s so-called giving and receiving paradigm (which, as we shall argue, is itself based on a misunderstanding of the phrase εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως found in Philippians 4:15).235 Even though Briones has proven to be more critical in his

230 Datiri, “Finances,” 164–65, 186–87. Cf. Marshall, Enmity, 396–404; Peterman, Gift, 158–61, 197–200. 231 Datiri, “Finances,” 12–129. 232 Briones, Financial Policy, 58–130. 233 See Briones, Financial Policy, 64–65, 110–15, 116–28. 234 Briones, Financial Policy, 104. This three-way relational framework thus shifts the focus away from human responsibility vis-à-vis the origin of benefactions unto God, and “disentangles the horizontal ties of obligation to each other” (p. 181). Indeed, Briones asserts: “Because God provides the immaterial and material benefits that Paul and the Philippians reciprocate, no party can claim ownership of their gifts. All gifts are God’s … No longer does one party, after giving a gift, hold the superior position over the other as the source. No longer does the recipient, after receiving a gift, become subservient to the demands of the giver.” Briones, Financial Policy, 120. 235 It is particularly striking that, right from the onset of his study, Briones assumes that “Paul has a theology of giving and receiving” (which “will become clearer after an exegetical and theological analysis of relevant passages is carried out”), at the core of which is “a fundamental relational pattern, one which incorporates God into every giftgiving relationship in the divine economy” (p. 22). This, in turn, makes him “a comparable thinker on gift” to Seneca (p. 25). Briones, however, does not provide any explana-

42

Chapter 1: Introduction

use of Seneca than Peterman, noting points of convergence as well as divergence with Paul, and has ultimately disagreed with his overall interpretation (and that of P. Marshall),236 his treatment of Philippians 4:15 nonetheless remains inadequate insofar as it accepts the translators’ paraphrase without conducting any preliminary philological work and misses the syntactical and contextual specificity of the expression.237 Briones’ interpretive paradigm further falters due to the strict reciprocity his three-way relational framework implies. Taking χρεία as “material needs” and πλοῦτος as “both eschatological reward and physical provision,” he understood Philippians 4:19 to signify that “God’s [material] supply [would] stream through a human conduit, whether Paul or another church, in order to alleviate the financial straits of the Philippians.”238 Yet, it is questionable that Paul, as a broker of divine benefaction, would have (and would have been) expected to provide for the Philippians’ material needs, or that another church would have fulfilled his mediating role (which would have broken the very principle of reciprocity at work between Paul and the Philippians). As we shall demonstrate, there is little need to appeal to such socio-theological explanations to make good sense of Paul’s economic interaction with the Philippians. We may now bring this introduction to a close by highlighting the scope, significance, and structure, of this study.

1.3 Scope, Significance, and Structure of the Present Study Building upon the foundational work of Fleury and Sampley, this study endeavours to explore further the socio-economic implications of Paul’s κοινωνία with the Philippian community, and thereby to discover which strategic means the apostle might have employed to fund his missionary activities. By virtue of its research focus and methodological approach, this thesis therefore falls into the categories of socio-historical studies of early Christianity, a field which has particularly flourished over the last century. However, by concentrating on one specific practical aspect of the socio-economic life of the first Christian communities, namely Paul’s part-

tion for these working hypotheses. See Briones, Financial Policy, 22, 25. Cf. Briones, Financial Policy, 41–56. 236 See Briones, Financial Policy, 56, 176–83. 237 Indeed, most versions (RSV, NAS, NKJ, NIV, ESV) understand 4:15 to be referring to a partnership in, or, at least, a mutual sharing in the matter of, giving and receiving. Cf. Briones, Financial Policy, 94, 117–22. 238 Briones, Financial Policy, 114–15.

Chapter 1: Introduction

43

nership with the Philippians, it purports to move away from the issues that have so far monopolised much, perhaps too much, scholarly attention. Ever since E. A. Judge published his 1960 landmark essay on the social pattern of the first Christian groups, scholars have indeed largely focused on the question of their socio-economic background and status.239 Reacting against Marxist theories that located them amongst the revolutionary proletarians of the ancient world (if there ever existed such a social category), 240 Judge contended instead that: “Far from being a socially depressed group … the Christians were dominated by a socially pretentious section of the population of the big cities.”241 Following Judge’s lead, several significant studies were then produced by scholars such as H. Kreissig,242 G. Theissen,243 A. J. Malherbe,244 W. A. Meeks,245 or D. J. Kyrtatas,246 239 Judge, Pattern. Cf. Robin Scroggs, “The Sociological Interpretation of the New Testament: The Present State of Research,” NTS 26 (1980): 169. For a helpful overview of the history of scholarship up to the late 1980s, see Bengt Holmberg, Sociology and the New Testament: An Appraisal (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1990), 21–76. 240 Cf. Friedrich Engels, “On the History of Early Christianity,” in On Religion (K. Marx and F. Engels; New York: Schocken Books, 1964), 316–47 (esp. pp. 316, 334); repr. from Die Neue Zeit 1 (1894–1895). It is Kautsky, of course, who would fully explore the question. See Karl Kautsky, Foundations of Christianity (New York: Russell & Russell, 1953). The position of Deissmann, who was said to be sympathetic towards this Marxist view, is more ambiguous than is usually recognised. While initially he viewed “Primitive Christianity … as a movement of the proletarian lower class,” he later adopted a more nuanced perspective. See Deissmann, “New Testament,” 10; Deissmann, Paul, 241–43. Overall, it seems that Deissmann has been misunderstood by a good number of scholars. See Steven J. Friesen, “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-called New Consensus,” JSNT 26.3 (2004): 323–31. 241 Judge, Pattern, 60. Cf. idem, “The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community,” in The First Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament Essays (ed. J. R. Harrison; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 526–52; repr. from JRH 1 (1960). See also idem, “The Social Identity of the First Christians: A Question of Method on Religious History,” in Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E. A. Judge (ed. D. M. Scholer; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008), 117–35; repr. from JHR 11.2 (1980); idem, “Cultural Conformity”. Before Judge, Troeltsch (1912) had also opposed the proletarian theory. See Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches (vol. 1; trans. O. Wyon; New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960), 39, 42, 50, 67– 68; trans. of Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen (vol. 1; Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1912). 242 Heinz Kreissig, “Zur sozialen Zusammensetzung der früchristlichen Gemeinden im ersten Jahrhundert u.Z.,” Eirene 6 (1967): 91–100. 243 See especially Theissen, “Legitimation,” 217–21; idem, “Soziale Schichtung in der korinthischen Gemeinde: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie des hellenistischen Urchristentums,” ZNW 65 (1974): 232–72; repr. in Theissen, Setting, 27–67, 69–119. 244 Malherbe, Aspects. 245 Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 51–73.

44

Chapter 1: Introduction

who mostly agreed with Judge though they reached more nuanced conclusions.247 Meeks for instance argued in favour of a more complex stratification of the early church that reflected “a fair cross-section of urban society.”248 By the late 1970s, it appeared as though a new consensus had emerged, which greatly undermined previous Marxist interpretations of early Christianity. 249 This scholarly concord was to be short-lived, however, for, in the late 1990s, J. Meggitt attacked the so-called new consensus, which, according to J. G. Gager and S. J. Friesen, had never existed in the first place.250 Meggitt was of course not the first to raise some concerns with the status quo, but his critique was the most vigorous and meticulous.251 Reproaching his predecessors for their methodological “myopia,”252 Meggitt argued that Paul and his churches shared in a “general experience of deprivation and subsistence” with 99% of the rest of the population.253 That is, they did not escape “the harsh existence that typified life in the Roman Empire for the 246

Dimitris J. Kyrtatas, The Social Structure of the Early Christian Communities (London: Verso, 1987). 247 Others like Hengel or Kee concurred. See Hengel, Property, 37; Howard C. Kee, Christian Origins in Sociological Perspective: Methods and Resources (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 97–98. For the (supporting) perspective of a sociologist see Rodney Stark, “The Class Basis of Early Christianity: Inferences from a Sociological Model,” Sociological Analysis 47 (1986): 216–25. 248 Meeks, First, 73. Meeks’ nuanced position has occasionally been subject to misinterpretations. See Bruce W. Longenecker, “Socio-Economic Profiling of the First Urban Christians,” in After the First Urban Christians: The Social-Scientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later (eds. T. D. Still and D. G. Horrell; London: T. & T. Clark, 2009), 39–41. 249 Malherbe, Aspects, 31. 250 Meggitt, Paul; John G. Gager, “Review of R. M. Grant, A. J. Malherbe, G. Theissen,” RelSRev 5.3 (1979): 179; Friesen, “Poverty”; idem, “The Blessings of Hegemony: Poverty, Paul’s Assemblies, and the Class Interests of the Professoriate,” in The Bible in the Public Square: Reading the Signs of the Times (eds. C. B. Kittredge, E. B. Aitken, J. A. Draper; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 117–28. 251 Cf. John G. Gager, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1975), 93–113; idem, “Review,” 179–80; Richard L. Rohrbaugh, “Methodological Considerations in the Debate over the Social Class Status of Early Christians,” JAAR 52.3 (1984): 543; G. Schöllgen, “Was wissen wir über die Sozialstruktur der paulinischen Gemeinden? Kritische Anmerkungen zu einem neuen Buch von W. A. Meek,” NTS 34 (1988): 71–82; Luise Schottroff, “‘Nicht viele Mächtige’: Annäherungen an eine Soziologie des Urchristentums,” in Befreiungser-fahrungen: Studien zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (Munich: C. Kaiser, 1990), 247–56 (ET in Social-scientific approaches to New Testament interpretation [ed. D. G. Horrell; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999], 275–87). 252 Meggitt, Paul, 1. Others before Meggitt had drawn attention to similar methodological concerns. See Gager, “Review”; Rohrbaugh, “Considerations”. 253 Italics original. Meggitt, Paul, 75.

Chapter 1: Introduction

45

non-élite.”254 Needless to say, Meggitt’s radical reinterpretation generated much debate, though it has convinced only a few.255 Overall, it is not unfair to say that Meggitt has overstated his case. Studies by P. Veyne or E. Mayer256 have demonstrated the emergence of a plebs media in the early empire.257 It has also been shown that amongst textile workers from Asia Minor, among whom Paul should perhaps be counted,258 there existed a certain socio-economic stratification and hierarchy based on the quality of the material one worked with or produced.259 The same comment could be applied more generally to the craftsmen and traders of the Roman Greek East, some of whom became sufficiently wealthy to rise to the level of local elites,260 as well as to those in the Latin West.261 Conse254

Italics original. Meggitt, Paul, 75. Friesen might be one of the rare few who seem to side with Meggitt. For the candid exchanges in JSNT see Dale B. Martin, “Review Essay: Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival,” JSNT 24 (2001): 51–64; Gerd Theissen, “The Social Structure of Pauline Communities: Some Critical Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival,” JSNT 24 (2001): 65–84; idem, “Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community: Further Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival,” JSNT 25 (2003): 371–91; Justin J. Meggitt, “Response to Martin and Theissen,” JSNT 24 (2001): 85–94. 256 But see Miko Flohr, “Review of E. Mayer, The Ancient Middle Classes: Urban Life and Aesthetics in the Roman Empire 100 BCE–250 CE,” JRS 103 (2013): 308–309; Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, “Trying to Define and Identify the Roman ‘Middle Classes’,” JRA 26 (2013): 605–609. 257 Paul Veyne, “La ‘plèbe moyenne’ sous le Haut-Empire romain,” Annales 55.6 (2000): 1169–99; Emanuel Mayer, The Ancient Middle Classes: Urban Life and Aesthetics in the Roman Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012). Cf. Walter Scheidel, “Stratification, Deprivation and Quality of Life,” in Poverty in the Roman World (eds. M. Atkins and R. Osborne; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 54. 258 The only indication of Paul’s occupation, if indeed it is historically reliable, is found in Acts 18:3 which presents him as a σκηνοποιός. Traditionally, the term has been understood as referring to a tent-maker or a leather-worker (e.g., shoemaker), though, if one sets aside unwarranted theological pre-assumptions, it could well mean a “manufacturer of stage properties.” See BDAG, s.v. σκηνοποιός. Cf. Hock, Context, 20–25; H. Szesnat, “What did the ΣKHNΟΠΟΙΟΣ Paul Produce?” Neot 27.2 (1993): 391–402; L. L. Welborn, Paul, the Fool of Christ: A Study of 1 Corinthians 1–4 in the Comicphilosophic Tradition (London: T. & T. Clark International, 2005), 11–12. 259 Both epigraphic and literary evidence (e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 34.21–23) suggest that the βαφεύς (dyer) was more reputable than the λινουργός (linen worker), though both were still of much lesser social standing than the πορφυροβάφος/πώλης (dyer/dealer of murex). See Guy Labarre and Marie-Thérèse Le Dinahet, “Les métiers du textile en Asie Mineure de l’époque hellénistique à l’époque impériale,” in Aspects de l’artisanat du textile dans le monde méditerranéen (Égypte, Grèce, monde romain) (Collection de l’institut d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’antiquité, Université Lumière-Lyon 2; Paris: de Boccard, 1996), 64–67. 260 Nijf, Civic World, 21–22, 42. 261 Tran, Les membres; idem, Dominus tabernae. 255

46

Chapter 1: Introduction

quently, the binary model Meggitt advocated, which has proven to be “wholly untenable,” “theoretically implausible, comparativistically anomalous, and contradicted by a great and increasing mass of research about provincial societies,” should definitely be abandoned.262 More recently, the tendency has certainly been to move away from such bipolar models, which Friesen has considered to be a mere reflection of our Western capitalism/ Marxism ideological dichotomy, 263 and to develop scales which could help delineate the social stratification of the early Christian movement in a more refined and nuanced fashion.264 These efforts are for the most part commendable, even though, as J. M. G. Barclay has rightly remarked, ultimately they can only lead to “tentative and imprecise conclusions” given the paucity and fragmentariness of our sources.265 Friesen himself recognised that his poverty scale functioned “at a high level of generalization,” being a mere “abstraction” whose figures are only estimates.266 Undeterred by Barclay’s criticisms or Meggitt’s concerns for the “self-referential” and “derivative” character of many sociological studies of early Christianity, 267 B. W. Longenecker nevertheless endeavoured to adapt Friesen’s scale by adjusting percentage figures according to the latest research on the ancient economy, yet without adducing any new primary evidence to justify his revisions.268 Longenecker’s 262 W. V. Harris, “Poverty and Destitution in the Roman Empire,” in Rome’s Imperial Economy: Twelve Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 31–32. Meggitt’s model is of course based on Garnsey and Woolf’s definition of poverty: “The poor are those living at or near subsistence level, whose prime concern it is to obtain the minimum food, shelter, and clothing necessary to sustain life, whose lives are dominated by the struggle for physical survival.” Meggitt, Paul, 5. Harris has however criticised this criterion as “too psychological” and imprecise: “what in any case is subsistence?” Harris, “Poverty,” 30. 263 But see Barclay’s sharp critique. John M. G. Barclay, “Poverty in Pauline Studies: A Response to Steven Friesen,” JSNT 26 (2004): 363–64. Conversely, Longenecker has argued that such “binary model reflects the rhetoric common in Graeco-Roman literature, with its differentiation of the respectable elite [honestiores] on the one hand and the ordinary poor [humiliores] on the other.” Bruce W. Longenecker, “Exposing the Economic Middle: A Revised Economy Scale for the Study of Early Urban Christianity,” JSNT 31 (2009): 247. 264 Friesen, “Poverty.” The Stegemanns have also developed similar stratification models, but without attempting to calculate percentages. See Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social History of its First Century (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999). 265 Barclay, “Poverty,” 365. 266 Friesen, “Poverty,” 338. Almost none of the figures Friesen provides can be determined with any certainty, as he himself admits. Ibid., 340, 343, 346–47. 267 Meggitt, Paul, 1. 268 Longenecker rightly exposed the weaknesses of Friesen’s scale which relied on C. R. Whittaker’s imprecise estimates (which allowed a 14 percent-point variation), but he

Chapter 1: Introduction

47

numerical rearrangement is in a sense unavoidable given the lack of statistical evidence, the “chief problem of ancient economic history.”269 In fact, it perfectly illustrates the theoretical limitations of such models and their potential irrelevance when care is not taken to apply one’s findings to the NT material, as P. Oakes has recently attempted to do with Paul’s letter to the Romans.270 While greatly indebted to this rich history of scholarship, this study does not aim to pursue the question of the socio-economic profiling of the first Christian communities by means of innovative socio-scientific models. As we have already made clear, it is primarily interested in exploring the socio-economic dimension of Paul’s partnership with the Philippians from a socio-historical perspective, that is, according to the socio-economic and legal conventions of Paul’s Graeco-Roman context. This entails that we encroach on unfamiliar territories such as philology, epigraphy, papyrology, ancient economics, and even Roman law, disciplines for which many NT scholars are not necessarily well equipped. But as the late J. A. Crook once remarked in response to legal historians’ criticisms at his delving into the “very intimidating field” of Roman law: “some risk has got to be accepted if one is to achieve anything.”271 Some (measured) risks are indeed worth taking, and it is hoped that the ones we shall take will repay us large dividends, providing us with new insight on an issue which has been insufficiently addressed in the past. Despite recent attempts to engage more earnestly with some of the practical economic concerns of the early Christians, the question of Paul’s possible economic partnership(s) and support network(s) has yet to be examined more thoroughly from a socio-historical perspective. For instance, the topic is not taken in Longenecker and Liebengood’s recent volume Engaging Economics.272 Similarly, it has not been given adequate consideration in a number of studies on Paul’s missionary strategy. 273 It is omitted almost himself showed a certain liberty in his handling of W. Scheidel’s approximations to grade his scale, following his “own impression” (p. 263) and not hard-core evidence. See Longenecker, “Exposing.” Cf. idem, Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the GrecoRoman World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 36–59. 269 A. H. M. Jones, Ancient Economic History: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered at University College London (London: H. K. Lewis, 1948), 1. 270 Peter Oakes, Reading Romans in Pompeii: Paul’s Letter at Ground Level (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009). 271 John A. Crook, “Legal History and General History,” BICS 41 (1996): 31. 272 Bruce W. Longenecker and Kelly D. Liebengood, eds., Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). 273 See for instance J. Warneck, Paulus im Lichte der heutigen Heidenmission (Berlin: M. Warneck, 1913); Martin Schlunk, Paulus als Missionar (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1937); Weinel, Paul; Ferdinand Hahn, “Paul’s Conception of Mission” in Mission in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1965), 95–110; P. Bowers, “Studies in Paul’s Under-

48

Chapter 1: Introduction

entirely in E. J. Schnabel’s treatise Paul the Missionary, and it is discussed very briefly and with little originality in his second massive volume on early Christian mission.274 The same could be said of L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte’s study which tackles the issue in general terms and reiterates (with some nuance) the conclusions of G. Theissen and R. F. Hock.275 It is treated in passing in J. P. Ware’s monograph, even though it proposed to elucidate the role of Paul’s churches in his mission,276 while it is covered within the length of a single chapter both in R. Allen’s modern application of Paul’s missionary methods and in J. P. Dickson’s examination of ancient missionary commitment.277 D. Peterlin consecrates a significant portion of his book to the question of Paul’s support, but he only shows interest in the issue insofar as he finds it to be a cause of disunity within the church.278 The avoidance of our topic in such studies is quite understandable, however, since these have generally focused on questions relating to the chronology, geography, and theological motivation(s) of Paul’s mission (e.g., the inclusion of the Gentiles).279 Still, it is surprising that the economic aspect of Paul’s mission has been relayed to the realm of incidental matters. This study intends to remedy this lacuna in scholarship by first conducting a detailed investigation of the technical financial language Paul employs in his letter to the Philippians, and by exploring the socio-economic dimension of his partnership with the Macedonian community. Due to the constraints placed upon us, we shall standing of his Mission” (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1976); Rainer Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); Robert L. Plummer, Paul’s Understanding of the Church’s Mission: Did the Apostle Paul expect the Early Christian Communities to Evangelize? (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006); Ksenija Magda, Paul’s Territoriality and Mission Strategy: Searching for the Geographical Awareness Paradigm Behind Romans (WUNT 2.266; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). It also seems to have been of little interest to Harnack who very sporadically dealt with the question. See for instance his cursory discussion of the instructions on the maintenance of teachers and prophets in the Didache. Harnack, Mission, 354. 274 Schnabel deals with the Philippians’ financial support in a single paragraph in his Paul the Missionary, and dedicates only five pages to the general question of Paul’s financial support in his chapter “Missionary Tactics and Communication.” He acknowledges the Philippians’ financial contribution in passing, but refutes a “purely legal and financial interpretation” of Phil 4:15. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008), 245, 386; Schnabel, Mission, 1159, 1445–51. 275 See L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, Paul the Missionary (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 221–28. 276 See Ware, Mission, 169–72. 277 Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St Paul’s or Ours (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 49–61; Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 178–213. 278 Peterlin, Philippians, 135–216. 279 The secondary literature on this topic is quite substantial and need not be examined in detail here. For a brief review see Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 1–4.

Chapter 1: Introduction

49

not examine economic terminology found in other Pauline epistles, nor shall we seek to explore other economic connections Paul might have had with people such as Philemon, Phoebe, Gaius, or the Thessalonians. Similarly, we shall not give any attention to the purpose and significance of the Jerusalem collection, a subject which we have already addressed in print elsewhere.280 As our review of Fleury, Sampley, and Peterman, has highlighted, there remain several research avenues for us to pursue in greater detail. We have noted that, generally speaking, insufficient use has been made of the documentary sources to clarify Paul’s economic language in Philippians 4:15–20. Although commentators often adduce a handful of documentary examples drawn from the works of G. A. Deissmann, or J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, no one has ever endeavoured to conduct a comprehensive philological survey of Paul’s business vocabulary in the light of the documentary evidence. We have also underlined that, despite their best efforts, Fleury and Sampley have not sufficiently illustrated how ancient partnerships effectively operated, especially from the perspective of documentary materials. Nor have they established a clear semantic connection between κοινωνία and societas and their respective cognates. These substantial gaps in the history of scholarship necessitate that we dedicate the first half of this study to a rigorous philological investigation of the relevant evidence. We shall begin, in the second chapter, by laying out our preferred methodology. After acknowledging the significant developments of NT philology and lexicography in the past century and the limitations of modern lexical tools, we shall provide a detailed introduction of our methodology, which derives from that of Deissmann and his various successors such as Moulton and Milligan. We shall justify our reliance upon Deissmann’s document-based approach by arguing that papyri and inscriptions best reflect the “socio-economic realia of the non-élite.”281 Not only do they offer crucial insight into the language spoken by the ordinary inhabitants of the Greek East, which of course includes Paul and the Philippians, but they also provide concrete examples of how Graeco-Roman socio-economic conventions were played out in daily life. In the third chapter, we shall commence our philological survey of the key economic terms and expressions found in Philippians 4:15–20, that is, τὸ δόµα, ὁ καρπός, εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως, ἀπέχω, and πληρόω. As we proceed, we shall seek to examine and to illustrate the economic connotations these cognates could assume, and the functions they could perform, in a wide array of documents from the Hellenistic and Roman eras. This 280 See Julien M. Ogereau, “The Jerusalem Collection as Κοινωνία: Paul’s Global Politics of Socio-Economic Equality and Solidarity,” NTS 58.3 (2012): 360–78. 281 Meggitt, Paul, 29.

50

Chapter 1: Introduction

initial investigation shall then be followed by two more chapters that focus specifically on the significance of κοινων- cognates in literary and documentary sources, namely the verb κοινωνέω and the substantives κοινωνός and κοινωνία. In the fourth chapter, we shall offer a detailed critical review of previous philological and theological contributions on the question and shall demonstrate that, with the exception of a few studies, most have been motivated by various theological agendas and have largely ignored documentary evidence. In the fifth chapter, we shall then provide a comprehensive summary of our survey of all the instances of κοινωνέω, κοινωνός, and κοινωνία, which we were able to discover in papyri and inscriptions. Understandably, we shall not examine each and every one of the documents referenced in our appendices A and B.282 For the sake of conciseness, we shall mainly discuss those examples that are particularly pertinent to our investigation from a philological and socio-historical perspective, that is, those that demonstrate that κοινων- cognates conveyed the idea of economic partnership or cooperation. In the second part, we shall turn our attention to Paul’s letter to the Philippians and begin in chapter six by addressing the questions of the literary unity and genre of the letter. We shall offer a selective review of the checkered history of scholarship on both issues and present our arguments for considering the epistle as a single document that exhibits features of the ἐπιστολὴ φιλική, though without exactly corresponding to the (more or less established) genre. In chapter seven, we shall apply the findings of our philological survey to a selective exegesis of Philippians and provide a socio-economic reading of 1:3–11 and 4:10–20 that challenges traditional interpretations. We shall conclude by suggesting that, rather than appealing metaphorically to ideals of friendship or social reciprocity, Paul’s businesslike discourse actually reflects a specific socio-economic reality. In our ultimate eighth chapter, we shall explore the socio-economic significance of Paul’s discourse and attempt to explain his economic interaction with the Philippians from a first-century socio-cultural perspective. Drawing from Roman legal sources, we shall argue that they had mutually agreed to form a partnership, i.e., a κοινωνία/societas, whereby the Philippians contributed the pecunia (financial capital) to cover the operational costs of Paul’s missionary activities, while he supplied the ars and opera (skill and labour). We shall conclude by offering a tentative historical reconstruction of Paul’s κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον with the Philippians, as well as a reflection on the significance and possible reason(s) for the adoption of this strategy. 282

These include the original texts, our translation of the relevant excerpts, and a selective bibliography.

Part One

Philological Survey As we have already mentioned in our general introduction, the fact that Paul borrowed a number of technical terms from the commercial world has long been noted. By the turn of the twentieth century, and in fact long before then,1 several commentators had already made cogent observations about expressions such as ἀπέχω or εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως.2 Since then, scholars have often commented upon and explored the possible implications of what H. A. A. Kennedy considered a “skilful and unstrained use of financial terms” in Philippians 4:15–20, or what N. Baumert colourfully qualified as a “Feuerwerk mit Begriffen aus der Geschäftssprache.”3 To the best of our knowledge, however, no one has ever conducted an extensive study of Paul’s usage of such technical language in the light of the lingua franca of the day, that is, in the light of the language found in an1 Cf. Desiderius Erasmus, Des. Erasmi Roterodami in Nouum Testamentum ab eodem denuo recognitum, annotationes (Basel: Ioannes Frobenius, 1519), 440; Jean Calvin, Épîtres aux Galates, Ephésiens, Philippiens et Colossiens (Aix-en-Provence: Kerygma, 1978), 314; Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide, R. P. Cornelii Cornelii a Lapide … : In omnes divi Pauli epistolas commentaria (Paris: Ioannem Iost, 1638), 609; Jean Daillé, Exposition de Jean Daillé sur la divine épitre de l’apotre S. Paul aux Filippiens, en vingt-neuf sermons, prononcés à Charenton, dans les saintes assemblées de l’Eglise Réformée de Paris, 1’an 1639, 1640, 1641, 1642 (vol. 2; 2nd ed.; Genève, 1659), 512; Hugo Grotius, Annotationes in Novum Testamentum (vol. 8; rev. ed.; Groningen: Ex officina W. Zuidema, 1829), 108–109; Robert Johnstone, Lectures Exegetical and Practical on the Epistle of Paul to the Philippians (Edinburgh: W. Oliphant, 1875), 409; John Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Philippians (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1884), 274. Wettstein’s observation of several literary parallels is well-known. However, it is not entirely clear to us what he thought the expression might have meant, and what he himself intended by commenting: quae a Philippensibus accepit, in rationes Dei remuneratoris refert Paulus (i.e., the things which he received from the Philippians, Paul repays by recompense/repayments [?] in God’s accounts). See Wettstein, NTG 2:280. 2 E.g., Meyer, Philippians, 221; Lightfoot, Philippians, 165; Moule, Philippians, 87– 88; Vincent, Philippians-Philemon, 148; Kennedy, “Financial,” 43–44. Cf. Deissmann, LAE, 84, 110–11; Dodd, “Pauline Illustrations,” 294–96; Plummer, Philippians, 103– 105; Straub, Bildersprache, 27, 46; Beare, Philippians, 149–50, 155–56. 3 Kennedy, “Financial,” 43; Norbert Baumert, Koinonein und Metechein – Synonym? Eine umfassende semantische Untersuchung (Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelwerk GmbH, 2003), 274.

52

Part One: Philological Survey

cient documentary sources such as contracts, receipts, leases, decrees, honorific inscriptions, or private letters. Similarly, no one has ever undertaken an exhaustive survey of κοινων- cognates in documentary materials, which may explain why the ramifications of Paul’s economic discourse in Philippians have not been fully appreciated. In recent times, most commentators have simply relied upon the work of G. A. Deissmann, F. Preisigke, H. A. A. Kennedy, J. H. Moulton, G. Milligan, and W. Bauer (et al.), even though these scholars have adduced a very limited amount of documents to support their identification of these terms as technical or to illustrate how they were employed in ancient everyday situations.4 Yet, as G. W. Peterman has rightly remarked, “it is far easier to point out the presence of these terms than to explain their significance.”5 The purpose of the next four chapters will therefore be to determine the possible connotation(s) of these terms in a wide variety of documentary (as well as literary) contexts. This will be done with a concern to illuminate Paul’s language and the nature of his relationships with the Philippians in the second part of this study. In the third chapter, we shall concentrate on the following words and expressions: τὸ δόµα, ὁ καρπός, εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως, ἀπέχω, and πληρόω. In the fourth and fifth chapters, we shall then focus on κοινων- cognates and assess whether they could specifically refer to socio-economic partnerships. But to begin with, we should articulate and justify our preferred methodological approach.

4 Cf. Beare, Philippians, 154–55; Collange, Philippians, 148–55; Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 177–80; O’Brien, Philippians, 533–40; Fee, Philippians, 439–52; Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians (WBC 43; rev. and enl. ed. R. P. Martin; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 269–72; Reumann, Philippians, 662–66. 5 Peterman, Gift, 10.

Chapter 2

Methodological Considerations 2.1 Brief Historical Overview of New Testament Philology New Testament philology has had a long and checkered history, which began as soon as the need to explain Greek words to non-native Greek speakers, and thus to devise lexical tools, impressed itself upon the church – that is, as early as the publication of the Complutensian Polyglot in 1514, if not earlier.1 While this study is not concerned with lexicography per se, i.e., the definition of lexemes and their compilation in a dictionary, it will inevitably be influenced by its rich and colourful tradition and should take into account its latest developments. This implies that we ought not to confine our investigations to the standard, but now outdated, dictionaries such as LSJ, MM, or even Bauer’s Wörterbuch, which are not entirely free from inaccuracies and present some methodological issues.2 Even L&N, BDAG,

1 See John A. L. Lee, A History of New Testament Lexicography (New York: Peter Lang, 2003), 45–60. However, a concern to explain and provide glosses for Greek NT words is already discernible in patristic writings or in the NT itself (e.g., Mark 7:34; Acts 9:36). 2 As regards LSJ, see for instance John A. L. Lee, “A Note on Septuagint Material in the Supplement to Liddell and Scott,” Glotta 47.1 (1969): 234–42; Thomas Drew-Bear, “Some Greek Words: Part I and II,” Glotta 50 (1972): 61–96, 182–228; P. G. W. Glare, “Liddell & Scott: Its Background and Present State,” in Studies in Lexicography (ed. R. Burchfield; Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 1–18; John Chadwick, “The Case for Replacing Liddell and Scott,” BICS 39 (1994): 1–11. The obsoleteness of MM was a key motivating factor behind the New Docs project. For example, Horsley noted that about 500 NT words were not treated in MM, which also failed to provide documentary parallels for some other 800 words. See Horsley, NewDocs 5, 1–2, 83–93. Cf. F. Wilbur Gingrich, “New Testament Lexicography and the Future,” JR 25.3 (1945): 180; Colin J. Hemer, “Towards a New Moulton and Milligan,” NovT 24.2 (1982): 97–123. Concerning NT lexica in general, see Lee, History; L&N, viii–xi; John E. Gates, An Analysis of the Lexicographic Resources used by American Biblical Scholars Today (SBLDS 8; Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972), 133–35. For a critique of Bauer’s Wörterbuch and Greek-English Lexicon, see for instance Margaret M. Mitchell, “‘Diotrephes does not receive us’: The Lexicographical and Social Context of 3 John 9–10,” JBL 117.2 (1998): 299–320.

54

Part One: Philological Survey

or DGE, are not immune, though they represent notable improvements.3 The idea that lexica constitute authoritative, exhaustive, and reliable resources is too hopeful and perhaps naive – their sources should thus always be checked carefully and their definitions re-examined in the light of new evidence. Long before J. A. Lee’s history of NT lexicography exposed the “dubious method and material” of many NT lexica,4 G. A. Deissmann had already warned NT scholars not to “bow slavishly to their pronouncements.”5 Lee’s candid review and critical assessment of NT lexical tools further reinforced Deissmann’s point by revealing their many limitations and deficiencies.6 Their apparent authority “can, and often does, conceal many sins – indecision, compromise, imperfect knowledge, guesswork, and, above all, dependence on predecessors.”7 This consequently requires that we strive to embrace the developments that have marked the field of biblical philology since the late nineteenth century, and integrate in our

3

L&N’s semantic approach and inclusion of definitions are significant improvements, which BDAG has only partially integrated. Muraoka’s lexicon of the LXX is also a welcome development. T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2009). See Lee, History, 155–75; Terry Roberts, “Review of Frederick Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: Third Edition,” RBL (2002). Cf. Abraham J. Malherbe, “Review of Frederick Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: Third Edition,” RBL (2002); Harold W. Attridge, “Review of Frederick Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: Third Edition,” RBL (2002). All online at: http://www.bookreviews.org. 4 Lee, History, xi. 5 Deissmann, LAE, 402. Deissmann himself had recognised the need for a new Greek NT lexicon and worked for many years on the project, though without being able to complete the task. See his letters to J. H. Moulton in G. H. R. Horsley, “The origin and Scope of Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, and Deissmann’s planned New Testament Lexicon: Some Unpublished Letters of G. A. Deissmann to J. H. Moulton,” BJRL 76.1 (1994): 187–216. Cf. Deissmann, “New Testament,” 308–309. See also Albrecht Gerber, Deissmann the Philologist (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 60–103. 6 Lee’s assessment is unequivocal: “New Testament lexicography has failed to deliver the results one might expect from such long-sustained attention. Instead of a commodity that provides accurately described meanings and a reliable summation of the relevant data, we have haphazard coverage of the latter and a considerably flawed treatment of the former. The reasons for this outcome have been identified in the foregoing chapters: undue reliance on predecessors, an unsatisfactory method of indicating meaning, interference from translations, and inadequate means of gathering evidence and opinion.” Lee, History, 177. See also Frederick W. Danker, “Lexicographic Hazards, Pitfalls and Challenges, with Special Reference to the Contributions of John Edward Gates,” SBLSP 24 (1985): 235–41. 7 John A. L. Lee, “The Present State of Lexicography of Ancient Greek,” in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker (eds. B. A. Taylor et al; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 66.

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

55

philological investigations the mass of ancient documents discovered since then. The following study deliberately draws its inspiration from the work and methodology of Deissmann (and his followers), who, influenced by the advances of comparative philology, revolutionised the discipline of biblical studies at the turn of the twentieth century by illustrating, beyond any possible doubt, the close linguistic similarities between the NT and ancient documents.8 Deissmann’s innovative approach literally “originated the academic discipline of NT philology,”9 and earned him the epithets of “philological trailblazer in NT studies,”10 and of “watershed figure for the history of the investigation of the language of the NT.”11 He was of course not the first one to turn to non-literary sources,12 as he himself readily acknowledged,13 but his survey was by far the most extensive and influential (in the field of NT studies).14 Although not without his critics,15 Deissmann’s works would later inspire J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan’s dictionary, which was based on documentary sources (mainly papyri), or projects such as the New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity series (which itself began as an attempt to revise Moulton and Milligan’s work).16 Examining hundreds of papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions, from Egypt, Greece, and Asia Minor, Deissmann was able to demonstrate that the Septuagint (LXX) and the NT were neither composed in the Attic literary style

8 For a comprehensive review of Deissmann’s work and influence, see Gerber, Deissmann. 9 Gerber, Deissmann, 27. 10 Gerber, Deissmann, 41. 11 James W. Voelz, “The Language of the New Testament,” ANRW 25.2:906. 12 See for instance E. L. Hicks, “On Some Political Terms Employed in the New Testament,” CR 1.1, 1.2 (1887): 4–8, 42–46; William H. P. Hatch, “Some Illustrations of New Testament Usage from Greek Inscriptions of Asia Minor,” JBL 27.2 (1908): 134– 46. For more references see Francis T. Gignac, “The Language of the Non-Literary Greek Papyri,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology (ed. D. H. Samuel; Toronto: A. M. Hakkert, 1970), 139; idem, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (vol. 1; Milan: La Goliardica, 1976), 41–45. 13 Deissmann, LAE, 62–64, 68. Cf. W. L. Lorimer, “Deissmannism before Deissmann,” ExpTim 32.7 (1921): 330; Gerber, Deissmann, 28–29. 14 A. Thumb, S. Witkowski, E. Mayser, H. St J. Thackeray, J. H. Moulton, A. J. Robertson, H. von Soden, are all indebted to Deissmann in some way. See Voelz, “Language,” ANRW 25.2:910–12. 15 See Voelz, “Language,” ANRW 25.2:914–19; Moisés Silva, “Bilingualism and the Character of Palestinian Greek,” Biblica 61 (1980): 198–204. 16 All acknowledge the inspirational role of Deissmann, who, for Moulton, was “a pioneer of original genius and remarkable freshness.” James H. Moulton, “Review of G. A. Deissmann, Light from the East,” ExpTim 20 (1908): 30. Cf MM, xi–xii; Horsley, NewDocs 5, 82; idem, “Letters.” See also Robertson, Grammar, x.

56

Part One: Philological Survey

(the purist position), nor in Semitic Greek (the Hebraist perspective),17 but in colloquial Greek, what ancient grammarians called ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, which was the vernacular spoken by the majority of the inhabitants of the Greek East, Jews included.18 This hypothesis had already been formulated, yet it had not been thoroughly demonstrated on the basis of documentary sources.19 It was to be later confirmed by further case studies by A. Thumb,20 T. Nägeli,21 J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, and more recently by J. A. Lee and F. T. Gignac,22 and has now become the communis opinio (despite the enduring influence of H. Cremer who had insisted on a biblical species of Greek).23 17

This long-standing debate originated in the seventeenth century. See Robertson, Grammar, 76–108; Voelz, “Language,” ANRW 25.2:897–900; Horsley, NewDocs 5, 37– 40; Gerber, Deissmann, 107–108. 18 Gustav A. Deissmann, The Philology of the Greek Bible: Its Present and Future (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908), 7, 22–23; idem, LAE, 62–70. Cf. idem, “Hellenistic Greek with Special Consideration of the Greek Bible,” in The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays (ed. S. E. Porter; JSNTSS 60; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 39–59; repr. from Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche 7 (1899). See also Samuel Angus, “Modern Methods in New Testament Philology,” HTR 2.4 (1909): 448–49; James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (vol. 1: Prolegomena; 3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908), 2–5, 18–19; MM, xi–xiii; G. H. R. Horsley, “Divergent Views on the Nature of the Greek of the Bible,” Biblica 65 (1984): 393–403; Stanley Porter, Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice (New York: Peter Lang, 1996), 139–60; Gerber, Deissmann, 32. 19 H. A. A. Kennedy, G. B. Winer, E. Masson (in the preface of the third English edition of Winer’s Grammatik), and J. B. Lightfoot, had anticipated Deissmann’s position. See H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of New Testament Greek: Or the Influence of the Septuagint on the Vocabulary of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), 164–66; J. Rendel. Harris, “The Socalled Biblical Greek,” ExpTim 25.2 (1913): 54–55; Lorimer, “Deissmannism,” 330; Voelz, “Language,” ANRW 25.2:901; Gerber, Deissmann, 28–29. 20 Albert Thumb, Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Beurteilung der KOINH (Strassburg: Trübner, 1901). 21 For example, Nägeli asserted: “Die Schreibweise des Paulus ist weder unhellenisch noch im eigentlichen Sinne literarisch geschult, sondern gehört (neben sehr begreiflichen Anklängen an die LXX) in den Bereich einer zwar unliterarischen, aber doch nicht eigentlich vulgären, sondern im Ausdruck gewandten Umgangssprache, die sich auch in den abstrakten Lebensgebieten zu bewegen weiss.” Theodor Nägeli, Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus (Basel: Buchdruckerei zum Basler Berichthaus, 1904), 13. Cf. ibid., 73. 22 John A. L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983); Francis T. Gignac, “Grammatical Developments of Greek in Roman Egypt Significant for the New Testament,” in The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development (eds. S. E. Porter and A. W. Pitts; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2013), 401–419. 23 Voelz, “Language,” ANRW 25.2:925–30. Cf. Robertson, Grammar, 76; Robert Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 19–20; Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers (2nd ed.; London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 106–108, 147–52. For Cremer’s

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

57

Evidently, the implications of this discovery were momentous. Firstly, it dispelled the theories that NT Greek was either “genuinely classical,”24 a Jewish-Greek dialect, or some kind of sacred Greek whose morphological and syntactical singularities were inspired by the Holy Spirit, as R. Rothe had asserted25 – the latter view was also shared by H. Cremer, who followed F. Schleiermacher and who later influenced G. Kittel, which partly explains why his theological dictionary is problematic.26 Secondly, by reaching beyond the LXX and by adducing comparative evidence drawn from ancient documents, Deissmann opened new avenues of research and offered an original method of conducting philological studies of the NT.27 Thirdly, he persuasively demonstrated that Paul spoke and wrote “the cosmopolitan Greek of the Roman Empire,” and that, consequently, ancient documents could be brought to bear to elucidate the sometimes perplexing language of his letters.28 This entailed, as J. Barr has aptly remarked, that in Paul “the individual semantic value of many words was not changed from the average Hellenistic, and was not greatly deepened where words were technically overprinted with a Jewish reference.”29 Although Deissmann was later criticised for the questionable genre distinction between literary letter and non-literary letter he applied to Paul’s

position, see the preface to the first edition of his Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (4th ed.; trans. W. Urwick; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), iv–v. 24 Deissmann, BS, 63. 25 See R. Rothe, Zur Dogmatik, 238, quoted in Deissmann, Philology, 42. Some dubious theories die hard. See for instance Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965), 183–88; idem, “Jewish and Christian Influence on New Testament Vocabulary,” NovT 16.2 (1974): 149–60; idem, Christian Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), viii–xiii. For a scathing review of Turner, see G. H. R. Horsley, “The Fiction of ‘Jewish Greek’,” NewDocs 5, 5–40. Cf. Edgar V. McKnight, “Is the New Testament written in ‘Holy Ghost Greek’?” BT 16 (1965): 87–93; idem, “The New Testament and ‘Biblical Greek’,” JBR 34 (1966): 36–42. 26 Cremer, Lexicon, iv–v. Cf. Kittel, TDNT 1: vii. For a critique of Kittel’s TWNT, see James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 206–62. Cf. G. B. Caird, “Articles towards a Lexicon of the Septuagint,” JTS 19 (1968): 453–54. 27 Deissmann, BS, 80; idem, LAE, 405. Deissmann resisted chief reliance on the Septuagint. Cf. idem, BS, 124–35, 154–57. 28 Deissmann, LAE, 1. Cf. ibid., 70; Deissmann, Paul, 109. See also James H. Moulton, From Egyptian Rubbish-Heaps: Five Popular Lectures on the New Testament, with a Sermon, delivered at Northfield, Massachusetts (3rd ed.; London: Epworth, 1927), 26; Margaret E. Thrall, Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and Exegetical Studies (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 8. 29 Barr, Semantics, 250. Thus, “the impress of the Jewish tradition in the Pauline letters and speeches was borne mainly by the things that he said, his sentences, his complex word-combinations, his themes and subject-matter.”

58

Part One: Philological Survey

epistles,30 for his use of philological evidence to ascertain Paul’s social status,31 and for his exaggeration of the linguistic homogenization of the Graeco-Roman world,32 his contribution to NT studies has remained greatly valuable.33 His philological method in particular, which is implicit throughout the bulk of his work rather than explicitly articulated, is as valid and pertinent today as it was then, even if it has been somewhat neglected in the second part of the twentieth century. 34 The following survey seeks to perpetuate the philological tradition of Deissmann and his immediate successors, Moulton and Milligan, and more recently, J. A. Lee, G. H. R. Horsley, or even T. V. Evans and J. K. Aitken, while endeavouring to exploit further the neglected goldmine of documentary sources.35 It is 30 Deissmann, BS, 3–59; idem, LAE, 227–51; idem, Paul, 8–12. Robertson somewhat approved of the distinction, but was cautious as to its application to Paul’s letters. Robertson, Grammar, 70, 86. Exler suggested that the distinction should rather be made between real and unreal letters. See Francis X. J. Exler, The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter: A Study in Greek Epistolography (Washington: Catholic University of America, 1923), 16–18. Cf. Otto Roller, Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom antiken Briefe (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1933), 23–28; Heikki Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1956), 88–90; Klaus Thraede, Grundzüge griechische-römischer Brieftopik (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1970), 1–4; William G. Doty, “The Classification of Epistolary Literature,” CBQ 31 (1969): 183–99; Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 17–20; Lutz Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 20–25. 31 Although there is some validity in using linguistic evidence to “evaluate the social status of the writers,” as noted by Horsley, NewDocs 5, 45, Deissmann failed to use the evidence consistently. He initially affirmed that “[b]y its social structure Primitive Christianity points unequivocally to the lower and middle classes.” Deissmann, LAE, 7. Later, however, he rejected the idea that Paul was a proletarian who “lived in absolutely humble circumstances,” and asserted that “[o]n the ground of his language rather Paul should be assigned to a higher class.” Deissmann, Paul, 50. 32 Rick Strelan, “The Languages of Lycus Valley,” in Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City (eds. A. H. Cadwallader and M. Trainor; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 89. 33 For further discussion of these points, see Malherbe, Aspects, 29–59; Horsley, “Divergent,” 395. 34 Gerber, Deissmann, 2. Cf. Judge, “Social Identity,” in Social Distinctives (ed. D. M. Scholer), 134; repr. from JHR 11.2 (1980). The neglect of documentary sources is partly due to a return to an emphasis on the Semitic background of the NT, according to Horsley, NewDocs 5, 39, 81–82. 35 Horsley and Lee’s revision of Moulton and Milligan lexicon is unlikely ever to be published. On their earlier plans for this project see G. H. R. Horsley and John A. L. Lee, “A Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary Parallels: Some Interim Entries, 1,” FilNT 10 (1997): 55–84. More recently, Evans, Lee, and Aitken, have been working on a lexical analysis of Ptolemaic papyri from the Zenon archive, which is projected to finish in 2014. The need for a comprehensive linguistic analysis of Greek papyri indeed re-

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

59

hoped that it will constitute a suitable response to Deissmann’s appeal to young researchers to “set themselves seriously to labour in this field of biblical research.”36

2.2 Value of Deissmann’s Methodological Approach Our decision to adopt Deissmann’s methodology is justified by a number of important reasons. Firstly, it provides the best perspective to appreciate the NT in terms of its true linguistic value, that is, as written in the vernacular of the period. As most linguists now recognise, C. C. Caragounis excepted,37 after the conquests of Alexander the Great Koine rapidly became “the mother-tongue of the new Greek communities in Egypt, Syria, [and] Asia Minor,” as well as “the universal language of prose literature” (to the detriment of other dialects).38 Indeed, “all the empirical evidence points to [Koine] being essentially the established language of commerce, diplomacy, and officialdom,”39 in the eastern Mediterranean both during mains vital. See T. V. Evans and D. D. Obbink, eds., The Language of the Papyri (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 1–12. 36 Deissmann, BS, viii. 37 Caragounis is of the opinion that, in the aftermath of Alexander’s conquests (and subsequent Hellenization of the conquered territories), “new users” of Greek became responsible for degrading it to “a sub-standard language,” having “neither the feeling nor the ability to speak and write Greek correctly,” or, at least, not as well as the Atticizing inhabitants of Greece did (p. 40). To say that Caragounis’ work is characterised by a certain nationalistic fervour is an understatement. His disparagement of the Greek of the LXX, the NT, and other documentary evidence (some of which was written by ethnic Greeks), as inferior to Attic Greek (without considering issues relating to educational level, linguistic registers, etc.), may be as caricatural as contending that North American, Australian, or South African modern users of English, for example, have reduced Shakespeare’s language to some kind of pidgin English. See Chrys C. Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 39–44, 123. For a thorough critique of Caragounis, see Moisés Silva, “Biblical Greek and Modern Greek: A Review Article,” WTJ 67 (2005): 391–404. Cf. Chrys C. Caragounis, “The Development of Greek and the New Testament: A Response to Dr. M. Silva,” WTJ 67 (2005): 405–15; Moisés Silva, “Some Comments on Professor Caragounis’s Response,” WTJ 67 (2005): 417–18. 38 Browning, Greek, 19, 22. Cf. Horrocks, Greek, 96–98; Ladislav Zgusta, “Die Rolle des Griechischen im römischen Kaiserreich,” in Die Sprachen im römischen Reich der Kaiserzeit: Kolloquium vom 8. bis 10. April 1974 (Cologne: Habelt, 1980), 135–38. Doric speech was the most tenacious to resist extinction. See Horrocks, Greek, 84–88. 39 Horrocks, Greek, 81. The rapid spread of Koine in Macedonia, Greece, and beyond, is easily explained by the fact that it constituted an extension of Great-Attic (i.e., an Ionicised form of official Attic), which, with the revival of Athens in IV B.C., had become the official literary and administrative language of the Greek peninsula. Latinisation was

60

Part One: Philological Survey

the Hellenistic and Roman periods, although it is true that regional dialects and bilingualism did not completely disappear, especially in remote areas such as the Phrygian highlands.40 Even R. Strelan, who finds Koine a problematic category, readily admits that, in the Lycus valley (Phrygia), for instance, “[s]ome form of Greek was almost certainly the language of mutual comprehension for peoples whose mother tongue was not Greek.”41 The idea that NT Greek was a sort of dialect that was different from Koine therefore rests on a very flimsy foundation. As G. H. R Horsley has rightly stressed, it presents no “cogent linguistic framework” and is purely motivated by theological reasons (or perhaps cultural biases, as in the case of Caragounis).42 NT scholars ought instead to appreciate that, having been mostly composed by people without an advanced literary education (except perhaps for the authors of Luke-Acts and of the letter to the Hebrews), the NT is “a reasonably close reflection of a range of the everyday Greek of the majority of the literate population in the early centuries A.D., subject, as always, to the influence of the ordinary written language of business and administration.”43 Naturally, this does not deny “some variation in degree of formality,” “literary refinement,” or register, between spoken

limited in the East, though the impact of bilingualism cannot be denied. See Horrocks, Greek, 73–8, 125–33. 40 Cf. Ramsay MacMullen, “Provincial Languages in the Roman Empire,” AJPh 87.1 (1966): 1–17; Strelan, “Lycus Valley,” 77–103; Cilliers Breytenbach, “Probable Reasons for Paul’s Unfruitful Missionary Attempts in Asia Minor (A Note on Acts 16:6–7),” in Die Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung (ed. E. Plümacher, C. Breytenbach, and J. Schröter; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 159. 41 Strelan, “Lycus Valley,” 101. Cf. ibid. 89–91. Strelan’s insistence on the coexistence of indigenous dialects alongside Greek in Asia Minor, on the variable levels of linguistic ability amongst the non-native speakers of Greek, and on their capacity to switch code and dialect, is valid. Yet, and despite local differences in accentuation and pronunciation, it does not entirely discredit the existence of a common form of Greek that could be more or less well understood (depending on one’s proficiency) throughout most of the Roman Empire. A Jew like Paul, who was born in Tarsus and lived a good part of his life in Palestine and Syria, and who himself did not have the level of education of the elites, could still write to socially diverse, Greek-speaking communities in Rome, Greece, and Asia Minor, and makes himself understood. 42 Horsley, NewDocs 5, 40. Horsley further remarks that this theory is “demonstrably a cul-de-sac, and its proponents do not inspire confidence in their methodology or scientific approach to the philological questions with which they are grappling.” Horsley, “Divergent,” 403. Caragounis nonetheless maintains that neither the LXX nor the NT can stand “as representatives of current main-line Greek among Greeks.” So much so that we are left with no “substantial documents of spoken or written Koine by Greeks from the time of the NT,” which is a gross exaggeration. See Caragounis, Development, 40–41. 43 Horrocks, Greek, 147 (emphasis added). Cf. Browning, Greek, 19–20; Zgusta, “Griechischen,” 125.

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

61

and written Koine, or between various Greek texts, including those of the NT.44 This leads us to a second important point. Deissmann’s methodology offers scholars a more accurate appreciation of the literary genre and register of Paul’s epistles, which, as the German scholar rightly argued, present greater linguistic affinities with ancient documentary sources than with literary sources.45 Lee and Horsley would later confirm this assessment by remarking that “the language of inscriptions and papyri is on the whole of a similar linguistic level to the NT, compared with the Greek found in most of the literature … even though the NT shows variation within itself and is not all ‘vernacular’.”46 As regards Paul specifically, we can therefore be confident that “the vernacular κοινή as set forth in papyri and inscriptions furnishes the ground-work of his vocabulary.”47 Consequently, it is justified that, for comparative purposes, linguistic evidence be drawn primarily from documentary sources, which, in terms of syntax, vocabulary, and orthography, are much better representative of oral language, as our present study will further illustrate. What is more, documentary sources afford a greater window of insight into ancient popular culture by providing numerous concrete examples of ordinary life situations in a large variety of contexts (e.g., contracts, leases, petitions, receipts, accounts, private and public letters).48 Literary sources, on the other hand, better reflect the life and concerns of the well-educated, aristocratic echelons of society, and, during our period of interest (A.D. I), were beginning to be influenced by a certain Atticizing trend.49 This notable difference between literary and documentary sources has been rightly emphasised by E. Dickey: “authors of [postclassical] literary texts did not attempt to write in the language of everyday conversation; rather they aimed at stylistic norms that in many cases had been established centuries earlier … Writers of private documents such as 44

John A. L. Lee, “Some Features of the Speech of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel,” NovT 27.1 (1985): 8. 45 Deissmann, LAE, 227–51. Cf. Régis Burnet, L’Égypte ancienne à travers les papyrus: Vie quotidienne. (Paris: Pygmalion, 2003), 292–93. The linguistic difference between literary and documentary sources is mostly a question of register. See Horsley, NewDocs 5, 30. 46 Horsley and Lee, “Lexicon,” 60. Cf. Friedrich W. Blass, Grammar of New Testament Greek (trans. H. St. J. Thackeray; London: Macmillan, 1898; repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2010), 1; Robertson, Grammar, 83. 47 Robertson, Grammar, 130–31. 48 As Robertson appositely notes: “the papyri have special interest and value. They give the language of business and life.” Robertson, Grammar, 20. Cf. Gignac, “Grammatical Developments”. 49 Browning, Greek, 44–50; Horrocks, Greek, 99–100, 133–41; Zgusta, “Griechischen,” 127–29. Cf. Horsley, NewDocs 5, 41–48.

62

Part One: Philological Survey

letters, on the other hand, often used a language much closer to that of ordinary conversation.”50 The influence of Atticism in fact exerted itself mainly through educational institutions and thus remained rather minimal on the development of spoken Koine and on the language of the NT as a whole.51 Thus, through ancient documents we have a more immediate access to the lingua franca of Paul and his communities, as this survey will confirm. Thirdly, the amount of primary materials at our disposal has dramatically increased since the days of Deissmann and his early successors,52 and resources have now been made available in fairly comprehensive electronic databases.53 Deissmann himself was conscious that he had merely surveyed a tip of the iceberg, and had urged younger scholars to take up the task as new evidence would continue to emerge.54 What he could not foresee, however, was the rapid technological developments that have allowed modern NT scholars to gain access to literally thousands of documents online. Scholars can thus no longer be excused for neglecting such a wealth of materials. For as Lee has advocated: “all available evidence not only can be, but must be, used in any work at an advanced level.”55 As we have already noted in our review of Peterman, it does in fact render a great disservice to NT philology when the primary sources are only partially 50 Eleanor Dickey, “The Greek and Latin Languages in the Papyri,” in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (ed. R. S. Bagnall; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 150. 51 Browning’s juxtaposition of NT examples with the comments of the Atticist lexicographer Phrynichus is particularly telling. See Browning, Greek, 47–48. Cf. ibid., 4; James H. Moulton, “New Testament Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery,” in Essays on Some Biblical Questions of the Day (ed. H. Barclay Swete; London: Macmillan, 1909), 481; Robertson, Grammar, 60, 76, 122; Thrall, Particles, 3–4, 9; Lee, “Features,” 8–10; Zgusta, “Griechischen,” 129. 52 Horsley, for instance, affirmed that 10,000 Greek texts were examined for the production of New Docs 1 and 2, which represents “the fruit of publication for two years only out of the half-century since MM appeared in complete form.” Horsley, “Divergent,” 394. Cf. Horsley, NewDocs 5, 82. 53 The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) contains all of the known classical Greek literature, while the Papyrological Navigator enables to search through literally thousands of edited papyri in the Advanced Papyrological Information System (APIS), the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri (DDbDP) and the Heidelberger Gesamtverzeichnis der griechischen Papyrusurkunden Ägyptens (HGV). The technology is less advanced for epigraphy, however. For Greek inscriptions, the Packard Humanities Institute (PHI) and the Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg (EDH) are the most comprehensive online collections, though not entirely exhaustive. They can be productively supplemented with a careful examination of indices in the Supplementum epigraphicum graecum and L’Année épigraphique. 54 Deissmann, BS, viii. 55 Lee, “Present State,” 67 (italics original).

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

63

probed, since it narrows down scholars’ perspective and prevents new important linguistic, and even historical, discoveries from being made.56 For the purpose of our research, we have therefore examined hundreds of papyi and inscriptions found in the DDbDP, APIS, HGV,57 PHI,58 and EDH59 databases, which we have checked against their editio principes (edd. pr.).60 We have also scanned the indices of diverse publications such as Supplementum epigraphicum graecum and L’Année épigraphique. While our aim is not to conduct an exhaustive survey of all of the available evidence, a goal too ambitious for this limited project, we have done our best to review large samples of representative materials.

2.3 Methodological Procedure As we sift through the bulk of primary materials, we shall seek to maintain a certain hierarchy as to the significance of the evidence. Following Deissmann’s advice to consider ancient literature, including the LXX, as “of secondary importance,” “so far as regards the language of the early Christian authors,”61 we shall give more prominence to documentary sources over literary material. As Deissmann further pointed out, “every reconstruction of the ancient world attempted by means of the literary texts merely is bound to be one-sided,” so that “comparisons drawn between Primitive Christianity and this fragmentary reconstruction of a fragmentary world may easily fail of success.”62 We shall of course not neglect literary sources altogether, but we shall adduce literary examples only when they are particularly relevant or when they confirm a seemingly unusual documentary usage. 63 Similarly, we shall not presume that the meaning of a NT term is necessarily always influenced by the LXX, for as Lee’s seminal study of the Greek Pentateuch has persuasively demonstrated, “the vocabulary that the 56

Cf. Horsley, NewDocs 5, 2. The DDbDP, APIS, HGV databases are conveniently regrouped into a single, integrated, and searchable platform: http://www.papyri.info/. 58 We have complemented our search of the PHI database, which is not entirely comprehensive, with an examination of the indices of all major epigraphic volumes such as CIG, SIG, the IG, IK, TAM series, etc. 59 The EDH database proved to be of limited use to us, since it contains mostly Latin and bilingual (Latin and Greek) inscriptions, but only a few Greek documents. 60 We generally follow the reading provided by the ed. pr. unless otherwise indicated. 61 Deissmann, BS, 80. 62 Deissmann, “New Testament,” 9. 63 Ideally, all available data should be consulted to attain a more objective and balanced view. Cf. Horsley and Lee, “Lexicon,” 59. 57

64

Part One: Philological Survey

LXX and the NT have in common is less than is often supposed.”64 In particular, Lee noted that “words common to both often vary considerably in regard to their uses”65 – incidentally, this should help us abide by J. Barr’s recommendation to aim at semantic accuracy independently from theologising influence.66 Nor shall we systematically engage in etymological investigations, a potentially dangerous exercise,67 or attempt to establish the meaning of a Greek word by seeking that of its corresponding Hebrew word. This method can certainly be precarious, as Deissmann had noted: People forget that the Septuagint has often substituted words of its own rather than translated. All translation, in fact, implies some, if only a slight, alteration of the sense of the original. The meaning of a Septuagint word cannot be deduced from the original which it translates or replaces but only from other remains of the Greek language.68

As regards chronological and geographical boundaries, we shall, broadly speaking, confine our research to the Hellenistic and Roman periods (roughly 300 B.C.–A.D. 400).69 We may sometimes have to reduce this window when the bulk of the evidence is too considerable (as for ἀπέχω, for instance), in which case we shall only adduce a representative sample of data from the period relevant to our instigation (ca. A.D. I). We shall use patristic evidence sparingly and with great caution, given that, from an early stage, the Church Fathers coined many neologisms and invested many biblical words with specific theological meaning.70 Although our selected time frame may seem too broad, we ought to bear in mind that, despite inevitable regional variations in phonology and or-

64

Lee, Septuagint, 9. This had long been noted by Kennedy. See Kennedy, Sources, 63, 109, 136–37, 165. 65 Lee, Septuagint, 9. Cf. ibid., 45. More recently, Mealand has demonstrated that the LXX is not uniform linguistically, but as varied as the NT. David L. Mealand, “Hellenistic Greek and the New Testament: A Stylometric Perspective,” JSNT 34 (2012): 341. 66 Cf. Barr, Semantics, 219. 67 See Johannes P. Louw, Semantics of New Testament Greek (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 23–31. Cf. John A. L. Lee, “Etymological Follies: Three Recent Lexicons of the New Testament,” NovT 55 (2013): 383–403. 68 Deissmann, Philology, 89. See for instance how the word ‫ י ָחִיד‬has misled lexicographers in establishing the meaning of ἀγαπητός in Gen 22:2, 12, 16. Lee, History, 204; Lee, “Note,” 237–38. Cf. Louw, Semantics, 40–45, who further discusses the issue of lexical equivalence between languages. 69 Conveniently, most papyri originate from this time frame. The period from A.D. 330 onwards is usually considered to represent the early stages of Byzantine Greek, which up to A.D. 600 is little different from Koine. See Deissmann, “Hellenistic Greek,” 41–42; Robertson, Grammar, 43. Cf. also the period selected by Horsley and Lee, “Lexicon,” 56–57. 70 Cf. Lampe, PGL, v–vi; Marguerite Harl, “Remarques sur la langue des Chrétiens à propos du Patristic Greek Lexicon,” JTS 14 (1963): 406–20.

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

65

thography, 71 Koine “was remarkably uniform throughout its area of use” during this period (in comparison with the various Greek dialects of the prehistoric and classical periods).72 Whilst this homogenising trend initially applied mostly to written Koine,73 it progressively affected spoken Koine as well, so that “the notion of ‘Greek’, which hitherto had unified the dialects only as an abstraction, acquired a more or less concrete instantiation in the form of the standard written, and increasingly spoken, Koine.”74 Naturally, this relative uniformity also applied to the Koine which Diasporic and Palestinian Jews employed, as documentary and literary evidence have suggested – caution should be exercised when using funerary epitaphs as evidence of linguistic ability, however.75 So much so that “we cannot distinguish linguistically the documentary texts written by Jews from those by non-Jews.” 76 For these various reasons, we shall make full use of Egyptian papyri, “our richest source of knowledge of the living Greek Koine,”77 as well as epigraphic material from Greece and Asia Minor.78 While we are conscious that Egyptian documents may often reflect a particular socio-legal setting 71

See Browning, Greek, 24–38; Horrocks, Greek, 110–23. The radical changes affecting the verbal system and the dative case became fully effective in late antiquity, however. 72 Browning, Greek, 23. Cf. Voelz, “Language,” ANRW 25.2:932. Moulton already held this view. Moulton, “New Testament,” 468. On the question of dialects, see Horrocks, Greek, 9–42. 73 Horrocks, Greek, 83–84. 74 Horrocks, Greek, 87. 75 See for instance Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Language of Palestine in the First Century AD,” CBQ 32 (1970): 501–31; G. Mussies, “Greek in Palestine and the Diaspora,” in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (eds. Z. Safrai and M. Stern; Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976), 1040–64; Heikki Solin, “Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt: Eine ethnisch-demographische Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der sprachlichen Zustände,” ANRW 29.2:701–11; Pieter W. van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of a Millennium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 BCE–700 CE) (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991), 22–24, 129–32. Cf. Horsley, NewDocs 5, 19–26. On the difficulties raised by epigraphic evidence, see Strelan, “Lycus Valley,” 77–103. 76 Horsley, NewDocs 5, 36 (italics original). More generally, see also J. N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known? (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968). 77 Gignac, “The Language,” 139. Cf. Gignac, “Grammatical Developments”. 78 For the rationale of this approach, see Moulton, Grammar, 27–29. Cf. Deissmann, BS, 80–83. Note: By II B.C., most Greek inscriptions from Asia Minor, the Cyclades and Euboea, were written in Koine. The same development took place in the Peloponnese after the defeat of the Achaean League in 146 B.C., even though many continued to speak Doric, according to Strabo, Dio Chrysostom, or Pausanias. See Browning, Greek, 51–52; Horrocks, Greek, 87–88.

66

Part One: Philological Survey

(though one not completely distinct from the rest of the Graeco-Roman world),79 and that papyri “do not provide a homogeneous body of evidence for popular Greek,”80 the works of Deissmann, and Moulton and Milligan, have persuasively demonstrated the relevance of Greek Egyptian documents to philology and, in particular, to the study of the NT and of the early Christian groups from Greece and Asia Minor.81 After a decade of investigations for the New Docs project, Horsley could likewise conclude with confidence: by the range of provenances covered the New Docs volumes demonstrate clearly the truth of J. H. Moulton’s claim (The Expositor ser. vi, 9 [1904] 224) that, allowing varieties in pronunciation, the great value of inscriptions for koine philology is that they show that “there was little dialectal difference between the Greek of Egypt and Asia Minor, Italy and Syria.”82

As regards the apparent uniqueness of Egypt’s socio-political setting, recent studies have shown that it should not be over-exaggerated.83 A. K. Bowman and D. Rathbone, for instance, have illustrated that the new Augustan policies implemented in Egypt mainly served to bring the province in conformity with the rest of the Roman world (rather than preserve its social and legal distinctiveness).84 This opinion is also shared by legal historians such as É. Jakab, who has further commented: “Vor allem hat man die Erkenntnis gewonnen, dass die Papyri Ägyptens nicht den 79

The interaction between Egyptian, Ptolemaic, and Roman law indeed makes the socio-legal situation of the region particularly complex. For an introductory discussion see Raphael Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, 332 B.C.–640 A.D. (2nd rev. and enl. ed.; Milan: Cisalpino-Goliardica, 1972), 1–55. 80 Lee, “Features,” 9. 81 Cf. Robertson, Grammar, 56: “The papyri and the inscriptions prove beyond controversy that the Greek tongue was practically the same whether in Egypt, Herculaneum, Pergamum or Magnesia.” Caragounis, on the other hand, discredits papyrological evidence as illustrative of the “uncouth, barbarous Greek” of Egyptians, which, of course, totally overlooks the fact that, in the aftermath of Alexander’s conquest, Egypt had been populated with many Greek colonists. See Caragounis, Development, 43–44. 82 Horsley, NewDocs 5, 9. 83 See Roger S. Bagnall, Reading Papyri, Writing Ancient History (London: Routledge, 1995), 2, 11–12, 66–67. 84 Alan K. Bowman and Dominic Rathbone, “Cities and Administration in Roman Egypt,” JRS 82 (1992): 107–27. Cf. Naphtali Lewis, “‘Greco-Roman Egypt’: Fact or Fiction?” in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology (ed. D. H. Samuel; Toronto: A. M. Hakkert, 1970), 3–14; Joseph Modrzejewski, “La règle de droit dans l’Égypte romaine (État des questions et perspectives de recherches),” in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology (ed. D. H. Samuel; Toronto: A. M. Hakkert, 1970), 317–77. For a recent study of the political and socio-economic changes affecting Egypt between the Ptolemaic and Roman eras, see Andrew Monson, From the Ptolemies to the Romans: Political and Economic Change in Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

67

Sonderfall einer entlegenen Provinz spiegeln, sondern den Alltag im Imperium Romanum.”85 With respect to papyrological evidence, we should especially keep in mind that “differences in documentary practices were relatively small, with a wide zone of commonality visible at least within the Greek-writing part of the Mediterranean.”86 Finally, we ought to remark that we shall mainly concentrate on the contextual sense(s) of the terms we have selected, i.e., their “features of meaning” as “derived from the context,” or, put more simply, their pragmatic usage, rather than focus on their lexical significance, which, following Louw’s definition, constitutes “what a word in itself, on its own, contributes to the understanding of an utterance.”87 Determining the latter is a difficult and specialised task which requires the expertise of the lexicographer. As regards basic lexical definitions, we shall therefore initially rely on standard lexica (LSJ, BDAG, MM, and L&N, primarily), using the information they provide critically, which will help us delineate a perimeter around possible contextual meaning(s). As we proceed, we shall seek to remain attentive to the context, genre, and socio-historical settings of the documents in question, as well as to particular syntactical constructions. This approach will allow us to illustrate (rather than define) how the terms Paul used in Philippians were also employed in daily life,88 which in turn should help us appreciate the possible ways in which Paul and his audience might have understood them.

85

Éva Jakab, “Vertragsformulare im Imperium Romanum,” ZRG 123 (2006): 72. Bagnall, Reading, 12. 87 Johannes P. Louw, “How Do Words Mean – If They Do?” FilNT 4 (1991): 137. Louw further explains that “contextual meaning is restricted to a particular instance, while lexical meaning is that meaning one can apply in all contexts by referring to what the word contributes, or represents for that matter.” 88 Hence, our aim is quite similar to that of Horsley and Lee who, in addition to providing a definition rather than a gloss (which is not our concern), focused on the “search for examples of the word which are illustrative of the meaning(s) in which it occurs in the NT.” Horsley and Lee, “Lexicon,” 56–57. 86

Chapter 3

Paul’s Economic Terminology in the Light of Documentary Sources 3.1 Introduction We may now properly commence our philological investigation. We shall proceed by first considering the substantives τὸ δόµα and ὁ καρπός, and then the prepositional phrase εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως, which itself is composed of three nouns, ὁ λόγος, ἡ δόσις, and ἡ λῆµψις. Inasmuch as it is the collocation of these three terms that gives it its semantic specificity, we shall first of all examine each substantive on its own, highlighting its possible economic connotation, and then consider them in collocation. We shall conclude our survey with a detailed examination of the verbs ἀπέχω and πληρόω.

3.2 Substantives 3.2.1 τὸ δόµα The word δόµα is a curiously slippery term that may have an economic connotation in certain contexts, as has long been noted by a few lexicographers and papyrologists.1 This is particularly evident when the prefix πρό is added to form the compound πρόδοµα, meaning a payment (paid) in advance, which is very frequent in papyri. 2 Yet δόµα is generally thought to mean simply gift.3 What lexicographers understand by gift is not entirely certain (since they only offer a gloss, i.e., another word with equivalent 1

Only one example is adduced in LSJ, s.v. δόµα 2: “PPetr.2 p.11 (iii B.C.)” (= P.Petr. III 42 C.1). Cf. Chantraine, DELG, s.v. δίδωµι, 279; DGE, s.v. 1. δόµα (accessed December 2012; online: http://dge.cchs. csic.es/xdge/1δόµα); George M. Parassoglou, “Property Records of L. Pompeius Niger,” BASP 7 (1970): 95. 2 E.g., BGU II 526, VI 1232, VI 1262; Cf. LSJ, s.v. πρόδοµα. 3 This is the only gloss given in BDAG, s.v. δόµα; or in Preisigke, WB 1:613 (Gabe, Geschenk). Cf. L&N, s.v. δόµα 57.73; Muraoka, Lexicon, s.v. δόµα. Surprisingly, although Moulton and Milligan include an entry, they give neither gloss nor definition. MM, s.v. δόµα.

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

69

meaning, and not a proper definition). We shall assume that they mean something similar to the definition given in the OED: “Something, the possession of which is transferred to another without the expectation or receipt of an equivalent; a donation, present.”4 What is important to stress in this modern definition is the distinctive feature of a gift, i.e., its gratuitousness and the absence (of even the expectation) of a return of equivalent nature. The applicability of this definition to the ancient world is itself contestable,5 since in most ancient societies gifts were rarely received without a sense of obligation to repay the donor with honour and gratitude at the very least (cf. Seneca, Ben. 3.1.1; Cicero, Off. 1.48; but see Aristotle, Top. 125a 18: ἡ γὰρ δωρεὰ δόσις ἐστὶν ἀναπόδοτος).6 This contrasts with the idea of payment, which we understand to signify a “sum of money (or equivalent) … in return for goods or services or in discharge of a debt.”7 As we proceed, it will be important to keep these nuances in mind so that we can differentiate the basic lexical definition of δόµα from its pragmatic, contextual significance. The term δόµα is quite common in the LXX, occurring some fifty-seven times, although it is never found in Josephus, and only rarely attested in Philo, Pseudepigraphical literature, the NT, and the apostolic fathers.8 It is just as scarce in non-Jewish sources, which gives the false impression that it is a strictly Jewish word.9 However, as Lee has observed, it is more 4

This is the second, main definition given, “II. The thing given” (emphasis added). The first one, “I. Giving,” is less applicable here. OED3, s.v. gift II. Accessed December 2012. Online: http://www.oed.com/ view/Entry/78177. 5 Within an ever-expanding secondary literature, Mauss’ work on the question remains seminal. Marcel Mauss, Essai sur le don: Forme et raison d’échange dans les sociétés archaïques (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2007). We are particularly grateful to J. M. G. Barclay who gave us a glimpse of his forthcoming book, Paul and Gift. His first chapter, “The Anthropology and History of the Gift,” deals with many of the issues at stake. 6 The fact that both Cicero and Seneca had to discourage the use of debt language when discussing gift-exchange, or encouraged benefactors to expect nothing in return for a beneficium, suggests that a sense of obligation always accompanied the exchange of gifts and favours. Cf. Griffin, “De Beneficiis,” 99; idem, “Seneca as a Sociologist: De Beneficiis,” in Seneca, uomo politico, e l’età di Claudio e di Nerone: Atti del Convegno internazionale (Capri, 25–27 marzo 1999) (Bari: Epiduglia, 2003), 97–98, 104–106. Note: the context of Top. 125a 18 is as obscure and abstract as can be. 7 Emphasis added. OED3, s.v. payment 1. Accessed December 2011. Online: http:// www.oed.com/view/Entry/139189. 8 See Matt 7:11; Luke 11:13; Eph 4:8; Phil 4:17; Diogn. 5:3. It is found only eight times in Philo (Leg. 3:196; Cher. 1:84; Sacr. 1:111; Deus 1:6; Migr. 1:94, 142; Mos. 2:242; QG 4:148) and four times in Pseudepigraphical texts, wherein it always refers to divine gifts (Let. Aris. 1:224; Liv. Pro. 21:1; Pss. Sol. 5:14, 18:1). 9 This must be ruled out since we observed instances of the term in ancient Greek inscriptions (IV–III B.C.). It cannot have been a transliteration of a Hebrew word either,

70

Part One: Philological Survey

likely that δόµα, as a new Koine word, came to replace the classical words δόσις and δῶρον.10 This assessment is confirmed by a basic TLG search, which reveals that the term is almost never employed prior to the composition of the LXX. It appears only twice in the catalogue of definitions spuriously attributed to Plato, in which it is used to describe a sacrificial offering (Def. 415b: Θυσία θεῷ δόµα θύµατος), and a deposit of money or some other property (Def. 415d: Παρακαταθήκη δόµα µετὰ πίστεως).11 Outside of Jewish and Christian texts, in which the lexeme appears in 95% of cases (out of the 570 instances found in the TLG), it is not encountered again until A.D. I–II when it is used twice by Plutarch in the sense of gift or benefaction (Mor. 182e, 531). It is also employed by the Alexandrian mathematician Heron and the grammarian Aelius Herodianus.12 However, they give no hint as to what they understood its significance to be. The next author to use the word is the lexicographer Hesychius (ca. A.D. V), whose work is poorly preserved and known to contain many interpolations with biblical glosses.13 Of all the authors examined, Philo is by far the most idiosyncratic in his use of δόµα. In his discussion of Numbers 28:2, for instance, he carefully differentiates between τὰ δῶρα, gifts which reflect the perfection and higher virtue of God’s liberality, and τὰ δόµατα, offerings which are required only temporarily and are considered to be of inferior grace.14 Howsince the LXX translators were not consistent in their use of δόµα. For example, whereas in Lev 7:30 it renders ‫ ְתּ נוּ פָה‬, it translates ‫ ַמ ָתּ נ ֹת‬in Gen 25:6, Exod 28:38, Lev 23:38 and Num 18:6–7, 29. 10 Lee, Septuagint, 100. 11 John Burnet, Platonis opera (vol. 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1907), St III.415. This collection of philosophical definitions is certainly not Plato’s and must be attributed to one of his disciples. By nature, such compendiums are also particularly prone to corruption and interpolation during the transmission process, which poses obvious problems as to their authenticity. We cannot therefore be certain that this represents the earliest reference of δόµα in literary works. Cf. John M. Cooper, ed., Plato: Complete Works (Cambridge: Hackett, 1997), 1677–78. 12 Heron, De mensuris 60.16; Herodianus, Grammatici, p. 935 (l. 29); idem, Partitiones, p. 23 (l. 11), p. 275 (l. 1). 13 Hesychius, s.v. δόµα; s.v. Ματθαῖος; s.v. πρόθηµα. For the first reference, Hesychius gives, strangely enough, τειχίον as the meaning for δόµα. In the second reference, he defines the name Ματθίας as δόµα θεοῦ, while in the third, he explains πρόθηµα as δόµα, ἢ ὅτι πρόσθηµα καὶ προσθήκη. For more information on Hesychius, see P. B. R. Forbes and R. Browning, “Hesychius,” OCD3, pp. 701–702; Renzo Tosi, “Hesychius,” BNP. Accessed August 2012. Online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-newpauly/hesychius-e512390. 14 See Leg. 3:196; Cher. 1:84; Sacr. 1:111; Deus 1:6; Migr. 1:142. Philo, however, does not apply this distinction in his discussion of Abraham’s bestowal of gifts to his illegitimate children or in his discussion of Moses’ allotment of inheritance gifts to the daughters of Zelophehad. Cf. Migr. 1:94; Mos. 2:242; QG 4:148.

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

71

ever, this awkward distinction is never encountered in the LXX, in which δόµα can equally refer to divine gifts (e.g., Num 18:6; Eccl 3:13), human gifts dedicated to a deity in the form of a sacrifice or a vow (e.g., Lev 7:30, 23:38; Ezek 20:31), or gifts between humans (e.g., Gen 25:6; 1 Sam 18:25; 1 Kgs 13:7). In two third of cases, these gifts take the form of a monetary or material donation. This is especially true in historical works wherein δόµα alternatively describes royal benefactions (e.g., 1 Macc 3:30, 10:24, 28; Dan 2:6, 48), diplomatic gifts aimed at securing political good-will (e.g., 1 Macc 10:54, 60; Hos 10:6), which in some cases may equate to the payment of a tribute (e.g., 2 Chr 17:11, 32:3), or what we might qualify as a bribe (e.g., Prov 18:16). Yet other senses can also be found. In Proverbs 19:17, δόµα clearly denotes a financial loan (whether at interest or not), rather than a gift without any expectation of a return.15 In 1 Samuel 18:25, it stands for the bride price Saul requires from David, while in Genesis 47:22 it is used almost synonymously with δόσις to refer to an allowance (in kind, most likely), which Pharaoh pays to the priests in return for the fulfilment of their liturgical duties.16 In sum, although δόµα essentially means gift most of the time, it appears that even in the LXX it could sometimes acquire a more specific economic connotation. a) Papyrological Evidence In papyri, the term is extremely rare. We found only seven instances in the DDbDP, APIS, and HGV databases. In the petition of the recluse Harmaios (UPZ I 2; 163 B.C.), it stands for the gifts that a young girl Tathemis collects to provide for her needs while staying in the Great Serapeum (διαιτώµενον δὲ καὶ ἐξ ὧν ἐλόγευεν διὰ δοµάτων, ll. 7–8).17 In the census return of the discharged soldier L. Pompeius Niger (SB XII 10788 B; A.D. 62), it refers to the Emperor’s grant of, presumably, civitas or immunitas.18 15

Key in this verse are the verbs δανείζω (to lend money at usury) and ἀνταποδίδωµι (to repay). 16 Cf. Muraoka, Lexicon, s.v. δόσις 2. The rest of the sentence is unambiguous as to the nature of this allowance: ἤσθιον τὴν δόσιν. And indeed, (state) monetization of Egypt remained very limited in the centuries preceding Alexander’s conquest. See Reden, Money, 1, 29–78. 17 Arguably, it could equally be read ἐξ ὧν ἐλόγευεν διαδοµάτων, whereby διάδοµα refers to temple distributions. See Adolf Wilhelm, “Zum griechischen Wortschatz,” Glotta 14.1 (1925): 70–71. Cf. LSJ, s.v. διάδοµα. 18 The phrase τῶν τὸ δόµα ἐσχηκότων is unattested in papyri. After consulting with N. Lewis and H. C. Youtie, Parassoglou judged that it must have referred to “one of the praemia militiae, either civitas (Fink), or an immunitas (Youtie).” Parassoglou also ruled out the possibility that δόµα might have been misspelt for δῶµα, since the scribe did not commit any spelling mistakes in the rest of the document. Parassoglou, “Property,” 95– 96.

72

Part One: Philological Survey

However, in Zenon’s payment order P.Cair.Zen. V 59825 (252 B.C.) it appears to have a specific economic sense. Zenon indeed instructs his banker Artemidoros to pay to Protomachos a non-refundable δόµα of thirty drachmas: διάγραψον … Πρωτοµάχωι δόµα ἀναπόδοτον ˫ (= δραχµάς) λ (ll. 1–3; cf. ll. 17–22). Both the nature of the document and the use of the verb διαγράφω, which was commonly used in such orders in the Ptolemaic period,19 make it unlikely that δόµα signifies gift here, though the collocation with the adjective ἀναπόδοτος, meaning not to be repaid (ἀν-απόδοτος),20 seems to give reason to the ed. pr. who translated it as such.21 In context, it is perhaps best to consider it as referring to a (re-)payment in exchange for some merchandise or service, as the editors of DGE have also understood.22 A similar usage may be found in one of the letters of Kleon’s dossier, in which a certain Philoxenos complains that the quarrymen have squandered the advance paid to them and have become idle: τὸ γὰρ προδοθὲν αὐτοῖς δόµ[α ἀνήγγελλον]23 ἡµῖν καταβεβρωκέναι σχολάζοντ[ες οὐδενὸς] παραδεικνύοντος ἔργα (ll. 4–6, P.Petr. II 4, Frag. 8 = P.Petr. III 42 C.1; 256 B.C.).24 In this instance, the economic connotation of δόµα is slightly less ambiguous given the content of the letter itself and the use of προδίδωµι, to pay in advance, as the main verb.25 In context, δόµα must thus refer to the payment of the workers’ wages.26 A similar sense is encountered in a much later tax-farming contract wherein δόµα refers to the acquittal of taxes, which suggests that the economic connotation of the word endured (P.Lond. V 1660, l. 21; ca. A.D. 553).27 One last example is observed in a long list of daily cash payments, in which δόµα appears on its own between two names (SB XXIV 16272; III B.C.). The lack of precise contextual in-

19

E.g., O.Wilck. 1160; P.Oxy. VIII 1157; PSI VII 781. Cf. Bogaert, Banques, 52–53; Roger S. Bagnall and Raymond Bogaert, “Orders for Payment from a Banker’s Archive: Papyri in the Collection of Florida State University,” in Trapezitica, 232 (repr. from AncSoc 6 [1975]: 94); Reden, Money, 290–91 (esp. n. 37). 20 Cf. LSJ, s.v. ἀναπόδοτος. 21 Edgar indeed translated: “Pay to … Protomachos as a gift not repayable 30 dr.” Edgar, P.Cair.Zen. V, p. 23. 22 Cf. DGE, s.v. 1 δόµα 2: “entrega como pago o paga a cambio de algo” (i.e., delivery as payment or pay in exchange for something). 23 The reading is that of BL II, p. 107. BL I, p. 350, has: δόµ[α ἀνενηνόχασιν]. 24 Cf. Naphtali Lewis, Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt: Case Studies in the Social History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 43; Parassoglou, “Property,” 95; DGE, s.v. 1 δόµα 2. 25 Cf. LSJ, s.v. προδίδωµι. 26 If the verb καταβιβρώσκω (i.e., eat up, devour), is taken literally, then their salary must have been paid in kind. Cf. LSJ, s.v. καταβιβρώσκω. 27 Cf. Parassoglou, “Property,” 95; DGE, s.v. 1 δόµα 2.

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

73

formation, however, makes it difficult to reach a positive conclusion as to its exact connotation here.28 b) Epigraphic Evidence Analogous observations could generally be made regarding the use of δόµα in the few inscriptions in which it appears (only twelve instances in the PHI). In some of the earliest examples, (Ἀΐδα) δόµα stands for δῶµα, i.e., house,29 or even temple, as in the archaic lex sacra of the temple of Athena in Tegea (IG V 2.3; ca. 400 B.C.).30 However, in the treaty between the ruler Eupolemus and the city of Theangela in Caria (McCabe Theangela 8; ca. 310 B.C.), δόµα (µηνῶν δύο) represents an extra-ordinary two-month bonus which is to be paid to soldiers who remain in the service of Eupolemus (on top of their four-month salary). 31 In the other instances, it usually has the sense of gift, such as in the much mutilated decree in honour of Autokles (SEG 49.1051; ca. 300–275 B.C.), wherein δόµα designates a gift of grain from the Histrians to the expelled Nikonians.32 A similar connotation is also evident in several Jewish and Christian dedicatory inscriptions from late antiquity. The earliest was discovered in the synagogue of Ostia and records Mindius Faustus’ private gift (ἐκ τῶν αὑτοῦ δοµάτων) for the construction (or restoration) of either the building or the κ(ε)ιβωτός containing the Torah – the real object of dedication re28 Names followed by amounts of sums either spent or received make up for most of the entries of this list. Here δόµα is edged by the entry Σάµωι δ and Γλαυκίαι ι (ll. 555– 557). As for the last two cases, the exact reading remains uncertain in O.Edfou III 368, and δόµα is misspelt for δῶµα, house, in SB XII 10788 A. 29 IKosSegre (EF) 834 (VI B.C.); SEG 44.463[3] (VI B.C.); IKret 4.46 (I–II B.C.); IK Heraclea Pont. 47. 30 Cf. Carl D. Buck, The Greek Dialects (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1928), 198, #18; Wilhelm Vollgraff, “Remarques sur une inscription de Tégée,” BCH 70 (1946): 617–27. 31 The inscription is slightly mutilated at this point, but can be reconstructed with relative confidence based on the context: Φιλίππωι δὲ καὶ ∆αµαγάθωι καὶ Ἀριστοδήµωι [καὶ τοῖς ὑπ’ αὐτοὺς τασσο]µένοις στρατιώταις ἀποδοθῆναι τὰ ἐνοφειλόµεν[α αὐτοῖς ὀψώνια µηνῶν] τεσσάρων καὶ δόµα µηνῶν δύο Ἀριστοδήµωι καὶ τοῖς [ὑπ’ αὐτὸν οὖσιν?] στρατιώταις ὅσοι ἂν µένωσιν παρ’ Εὐπολέµωι (i.e., and to Philippos, Damagathos, Aristodemos, and the soldiers [under their command], are to be paid the four[-month wages] that are due to them as well as a two-month bonus to Aristodemos and the [soldiers under him?], as many as shall remain with Eupolemos; ll. 8–10; McCabe Theangela 8). Cf. DGE, s.v. 1 δόµα; Michel M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation (2nd and enl. ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 88–89, #40. 32 This might also be the sense of δόµα in the fragmented inscription IG XII Sup 692 (l. 7), given the proximity of the verb χαρίζεσθ[αι]. However, the lack of context precludes a definite interpretation. Cf. J. and L. Robert, BE (1938): 448–49, #272.

74

Part One: Philological Survey

mains unclear since the inscription was re-used during the renovation of the synagogue. 33 Although the expression ἐκ τῶν αὑτοῦ δοµάτων has been said to be “rare” and “unparalleled in inscriptions,”34 comparable formulae suggest a rather common usage amongst Jews and Christians. In several late inscriptions from Aphrodisias (IAphrodChr 10), Keramos (IKeramos 64; Caria), and Sardis, the phrases (ἐκ) τῶν τοῦ θεοῦ δοµάτων and ἐκ τῶν τῆς Προνοίας δοµάτων are indeed employed to indicate benefactors’ donations (which are said to have flowed out of God’s bountifulness).35 This closely resembles the expressions ἐκ τῶν τοῦ θ(εοῦ) δωρεῶν and (ἔδωκα) ἐκ τῶν δωρεῶν τοῦ παντοκράτορος θ(εο)ῦ found inscribed in synagogues at Aegina and Sardis.36 c) Summary As this overview demonstrates, it can be quite difficult to determine with precision the exact connotation of δόµα in a particular context, the line between each nuance being very fine and easily blurred. This may be partly due to the fact that technical commercial language developed out of the vocabulary of barter and gift-exchange. As P. C. Millett has noted: “The plausibility of a connection between sale and gift-exchange is enhanced by the Greek terminology of sale. Most striking is the direct link between apodidomai, one of the commonest words for ‘sell’, and didomi, ‘to 33 The inscription was initially published by M. Floriani-Squarciapino in 1962. See AE 1967 (1969): 27–28, #77. Cf. David Noy, ed., Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe (vol. 1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 22–26, #13; Horsley, NewDocs 4, 112, #25; SEG 47.1486; L. Michael White, “Synagogue and Society in Imperial Ostia: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence,” HTR 90.1 (1997): 39–42. 34 SEG 42.916. Cf. DGE, s.v. 1 δόµα. 35 The Jewish character of the Aphrodisias inscription cannot be determined with certainty but is very likely. See #9 in appendix in Joyce M. Reynolds and Robert Tannenbaum, eds., Jews and God-fearers at Aphrodisias: Greek Inscriptions with Commentary (Suppl. vol. 12; Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1987), 136–37. The Keramos inscription was laid by a bishop on the architrave of a Christian building in the Byzantine era. See A. Maiuri, “Nuove iscrizioni dalla Caria,” ASAA 4–5 (1921–1922): 474–75, #22. For the Sardis inscriptions, see John H. Kroll, “The Greek Inscriptions of the Sardis Synagogue,” HTR 94.1 (2001): 5–55, #21, 22, 23, 58. Cf. Paul R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 49– 50, #4.9. See also DGE, s.v. 1 δόµα 4. 36 Debate persists concerning the interpretation of this formula, whether it means offerings unto God (Frey, Sukenik, Lifshitz) or out of God’s gifts (Robert, Kroll). See CIJ 1.722. For a plate of the inscription see Eleazar L. Sukenik, Ancient synagogues in Palestine and Greece (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934), 44 (plate XI). Cf. Lifshitz, Donateurs, 13–14 (#1), 28–29 (#20); Louis Robert, Nouvelles Inscriptions de Sardes (Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient Adrien Maisonneuve, 1964), 48–50, #7; Kroll, “Sardis,” 30, #29.

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

75

give’,”37 from which δόµα derives.38 P. Chantraine would have probably agreed with Millett’s assessment, as he concluded his study of classical words meaning to sell by suggesting that: “le grec ancien ne possède pas un verbe vendre … C’est au fur et à mesure du développement de la vie économique que s’est développé un verbe vendre.”39 This being said, it is quite clear from the examples adduced above that, beyond the mere sense of monetary or material donation, δόµα could also signify a financial loan, an allowance, or even a payment. What will need to be determined in our exegesis of Philippians 4:10–20 is the most likely sense that Paul must have intended. 3.2.2 ὁ καρπός Although the term καρπός is noted in lexica to have, on some occasions, the economic connotation of gain or profit (e.g., Xenophon, Cyr.1.1.2; Isaeus 5.29),40 it has been difficult to uncover any such example in our perusal of approximately 3,400 literary passages (prior to A.D. II), 41 600 papyri, and 500 inscriptions, in which the word appears. In most instances, it simply signifies fruit (of the earth), harvest or crop.42 Alternately, it can of course stand for a proper name,43 or a body part, i.e., the wrist.44 The term is used in much the same way throughout the LXX and other Jewish litera37 Paul C. Millett, “Sale, Credit and Exchange in Athenian Law and Society,” in Nomos: Essays in Athenian Law, Politics and Society (eds. P. Cartledge, P. C. Millett, S. Todd; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 182. This is also recognised by Hands and Marshall. A. R. Hands, Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome (London: Thames and Hudson, 1968), 27; Marshall, Enmity, 162. 38 Cf. Chantraine, DELG, s.v. δίδωµι, 279; Robert Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek (vol. 1; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 331. A similar connection exists between the verb δανείζω, to lend (at usury), and δάνος, gift or present. Cf. Millett, “Sale,” 182. 39 P. Chantraine, “Conjugaison et histoire des verbes signifiant ‘vendre’,” RPh 14 (1940): 24. 40 See LSJ, s.v. καρπός II.; MM, s.v. καρπός. The economic connotation is not noted by Preisigke. See Preisigke, WB 1:738–39. The glosses “advantage, gain, profit,” are given in BDAG (s.v. καρπός 2.), though none of the examples included relate to an economic context. Cf. Jan Korver, De Terminologie van het Crediet-Wezen in het Grieksch (New York: Arno, 1979), 45. The sense of τοὺς καρπούς in Isaeus 5.29 is not entirely clear, though it seems to refer to the proceeds of a bath-house (βαλανεῖον). 41 The term is particularly frequent in Hippocrates’ De natura hominis and Dioscorides Pedanius’ De materia medica. Understandably, it also occurs hundreds of times in Theophrastus’ De causis plantarum and Historia plantarum. 42 E.g., P.Hamb. I 68; P.Oxy. II 277. 43 E.g., 2 Tim 4:13; IG XII 3.715; IDelos 2618. The names Εὔκαρπος (e.g., IG II² 1945, l. 16; IG II² 1826, l. 23) or Πολύκαρπος (e.g., TAM 2.1069) are actually more common. 44 E.g., Hippocrates, Nat. hom. 11.24; 1 Sam 5:4; P.Corn. 6 (l. 6); P.Mich. V 259 (l. 2). Cf. LSJ, s.v. καρπός; Preisigke, WB 1:739.

76

Part One: Philological Survey

ture,45 though it can also be employed metaphorically in the sense of fruit of the womb (i.e., offspring),46 or in the sense of reward or product of one’s actions or words, such as in poetic literature or in Philo.47 Similar remarks could be made about its usage in the NT and in the apostolic fathers, in which both literal and more figurative senses can be found.48 It is noteworthy that Paul employs the word almost always in a metaphorical manner (with the sole exception of 1 Cor 9:7), coining expressions such as ὁ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύµατος (Gal 5:22), or ὁ καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης (Phil 1:11; cf. Jas 3:18).49 In Romans 1:13, it refers to the spiritual produce of his ministry, while in Romans 15:28 it designates the proceeds of the Jerusalem collection.50 At first glance, there thus seems to be no reason to understand the term in a literal sense in Philippians 4:17, especially since it collocates with εἰς λόγον (ὑµῶν), an expression which, as we shall see, is characteristic of accounting terminology. This is not the place for us to discuss in detail what Paul may have sought to convey. Yet, given that it has been suggested that the term could bear a technical financial connotation in this context, we ought to give some consideration to the question. Following H. C. G. Moule, Moulton and Milligan had indeed proposed the sense of profit or credit, though they admitted that no such example other than Philippians 4:17 was known to them, which should make one immediately suspicious as to the supposedly economic connotation of the term there.51 Moule had based his interpretation on the commentary of John Chrysostom, who, he thought, had likened ὁ καρπός to ὁ τόκος, which is “regularly used in the sense of interest on money”52 – a sense (of καρπός) which J. Korver never found in Classical and Koine Greek sources, however.53 To Moule, it seemed “that he [Chrysostom], a Greek, took St Paul 45

The term appears 128 times in the LXX (e.g., Gen 1:11; Deut 1:25; Jer 36:5; Sir 27:6), 87 times in Josephus (e.g., A.J. 1:54, 110, 140; B.J. 2:383; 3:44), 268 times in Philo (e.g., Opif. 1:39, 46; Leg. 3:99, 227, 249; Cher. 1:84, 102), and 66 times in the Pseudepigraphical literature (e.g., 1 En. 3:1, 24:4; Sib. Or. 1:297, 2:13). 46 E.g., Gen 30:2; Ps 20:11, 103:13, 131:11. Cf. BDAG, s.v. καρπός 1. a.β. 47 E.g., Ps 57:12, 103:13, 127:2; Prov 10:16; Philo, Leg. 1:22, 3:93, Plant. 1:116. 48 E.g., Matt 3:8, 13:8; Luke 1:42, 6:43; Heb 13:15; Rev. 22:2; 1 Clem. 4:1; 2 Clem. 1:3. 49 There is a Septuagintal and pseudepigraphical precedent for the latter expression (cf. Prov 3:9, 11:30, 13:2; Amos 6:12; Apoc. Sedr. 12:6). 50 The expression σφραγισάµενος τὸν καρπὸν τοῦτον is peculiar, and was thought by Deissmann (and Wilcken) to denote the action of sealing sacks of grain. Deissmann, BS, 238–39. 51 See MM, s.v. καρπός. 52 Moule, Philippians, 88. Cf. LSJ, s.v. τόκος; MM, s.v. τόκος; BDAG, s.v. τόκος. 53 Korver, Terminologie, 45: “In de gewone zin van ‘rente’, dus als vergoeding voor geleend geld, vinden wij καρπός echter niet” (i.e., however, we never find καρπός in the ordinary sense of interest, thus as remuneration for money lent).

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

77

to be using here the language of the money-market.”54 Thus, Moule suggested translating “the interest that is accruing to your credit,” although he readily admitted that “καρπός and πλεονάζειν do not appear elsewhere as technical financial words.”55 Moulton and Milligan also acknowledged this difficulty, but agreed that καρπός may acquire a sense equivalent to that of καρπεία, i.e., usufruct or profit, in this verse.56 Whilst Moule no doubt read too much in Chrysostom’s comment,57 and Moulton and Milligan accepted Moule’s doubtful explanation rather uncritically, epigraphist I. Calero Secall has suggested a possible economic connotation for καρπός in the archaic legal code of Gortyn (IKret 4.72; V B.C.), which is written in the Cretan dialect, in which both καρπός (spelt as το͂ καρπο͂) and ἐπικαρπία seem to acquire the meaning of (economic) gain or profit (“‘ganancia’, ‘provecho’”).58 Calero Secall initially followed M. Bile, for whom ἐπικαρπία represented “les revenus de la propriété,” while καρπός stood for “le revenu qu’on peut tirer de n’importe quelle source,” which, by implication, would have included income from non-agricultural sources as well.59 After a re-examination of the code, however, Calero Secall proposed alternative nuances for both terms: whereas ἐπικαρπία makes reference to the benefits gained from a property belonging to someone else, καρπός concerns the profits made from one’s private estate.60 This, she asserted, is apparent in the amendment prescribing that the heiress maintains the ownership of her inherited property and its καρπός, which Calero Secall usually translates as “la renta” (i.e., income, gain, rent),61 54

Moule, Philippians, 88. Moule, Philippians, 88. 56 E.g., P.Petr. III. 53. Cf. MM, s.v. καρπός; LSJ, s.v. καρπεῖον = καρπός. 57 Chrysostom indeed simply wrote: ὁ καρπὸς ἐκείνοις τίκτεται (Hom. Phil. 15 [PG 62.291, l. 56]). It is unclear to us why, in this context, Moule thought the verb τίκτω, which in its ordinary sense basically means to generate or to produce, could signify to generate interest (τόκος), even though there seems to have been a direct etymological relation between the two words. Cf. LSJ, s.v. τίκτω 4.; s.v. τόκος. But ὁ τόκος can equally refer to the offspring of human beings or animals. See Chantraine, DELG, s.v. τίκτω, 1118; Hjalmar von Frisk, Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch (2nd ed.; Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universität, 1973), 2:899, s.v. τίκτω. 58 Inés Calero Secall, “Las rentas de una propiedad: Epikarpía frente a karpós en el código de Gortina,” in Estudios de Epigrafía Griega (ed. Á. Martínez Fernández; La Laguna: Universidad de la Laguna, 2009), 130. Cf. LSJ, s.v. ἐπικαρπία; Korver, Terminologie, 45–51. 59 Monique Bile, Le dialecte crétois ancien (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1988), 321. 60 Calero Secall, “karpós,” 136. 61 Calero Secall, “karpós,” 131–32. While Buck alternatively translates produce and income, Willett consistently renders produce, which he seems to understand as consisting both of the produce of the land and of the weaving production. The code itself provides no precise contextual information. See Ronald F. Willetts, ed., The Law Code of Gortyn (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1967), 20, 40–41, 43, 45–46; Buck, Dialects, 314–31, #117. 55

78

Part One: Philological Survey

until the groom-elect (ἐπιβάλλων) decides to marry her (col. 7, ll. 35–40), or until she becomes of age to marry (col. 8, ll. 47–40). While in the absence of more precise contextual information it would be reasonable to assume that καρπός here simply refers to harvest or crop from the estate (especially in a pre-industrial, agrarian society), two rulings however suggest that it may have also been understood as the earnings of a woman’s weaving production (col. 2, ll. 45–55; col. 3, ll. 25–35).62 A similar connotation of καρπός is after all observed in a passage of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia (Cyr.1.1.2), in which it refers, in a general sense, to the proceeds of one’s flock, that is, one may assume, wool (and perhaps its transformed product, i.e., clothing), meat, and maybe cash revenues from the sale of animals or any of these commodities.63 This semantic broadening of καρπός to designate, more generally and metaphorically, the fruit of one’s labour, be it agricultural or otherwise, is not very surprising and, as Korver has rightly pointed out, is found in many other languages as well. It need not relate to economic gains exclusively, but could also include various political or social benefits. In his De corona oration (Or. 18.309), for instance, Demosthenes presents Aeschines’ potentially fruitful involvement in Athenian public life (τοὺς καρποὺς γενναίους καὶ καλούς) in terms of diplomatic alliances (συµµαχίας πόλεων), financial provision (πόρους χρηµάτων), beneficial legislations (νόµων συµφερόντων θέσεις), the development of commerce (ἐµπορίου κατασκευήν), and the opposition of public enemies (τοῖς ἀποδειχθεῖσιν ἐχθροῖς ἐναντιώµατα). In sum, the extant philological evidence should preclude us from speaking of a technical connotation of καρπός in the sense of economic gain or financial interest, although, depending on the context, it might have been used metaphorically to express the fruit of one’s labour in the form of economic benefits. What will need to be determined at a later stage is whether, in the context of Philippians 4:17, Paul might have intended the term in a literal sense or in a more metaphorical, and thus possibly economic, sense. 3.2.3 ὁ λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως This expression deserves to be examined in detail since the collocation of these three nouns is, to the best of our knowledge, unattested in ancient 62 On one occasion the meaning of καρπός is unclear as it is mentioned alongside livestock, clothing, ornaments and movable property (col. 5, l. 39). As Calero Secall herself admits, it can be taken either literally or figuratively. Calero Secall, “karpós,” 132. 63 Xenophon, Cyr.1.1.2: ἔτι τοίνυν οὐδεµίαν πώποτε ἀγέλην ᾐσθήµεθα συστᾶσαν ἐπὶ τὸν νοµέα οὔτε ὡς µὴ πείθεσθαι οὔτε ὡς µὴ ἐπιτρέπειν τῷ καρπῷ χρῆσθαι (i.e., yet again, we have never known of any herd conspiring against their shepherd either to disobey him or to refuse him the enjoyment of its produce).

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

79

sources, and because the economic connotation of δόσις and λῆµψις, two substantives derived from the verbs δίδωµι and λαµβάνω, is not immediately obvious. Furthermore, although it has been generally recognised that it pertains to financial terminology, 64 several recent commentators have instead stressed that it ought to be understood metaphorically, that is, as simply denoting gift-exchange within the context of friendship or social reciprocity.65 In the following section, we shall adduce and discuss hitherto neglected evidence that will further clarify the semantic source domain of this expression. a) Documentary Evidence for ὁ λόγος Lexicographers have long noted that the expression εἰς (τὸν) λόγον belongs to accounting terminology . 66 The noun ὁ λόγος itself, which can acquire a wide array of senses, often basically means account.67 Although the construction εἰς λόγον is almost never encountered in Jewish and apostolic literature,68 it abounds in documentary sources. Indeed, whilst a search of the PHI and SEG corpora delivers only a few results, the DDbDP, APIS, and HGV databases provide almost one thousand examples. In papyri, the expression occurs in a variety of documents such as receipts,69 contracts,70 nuptial agreements,71 accounts,72 petitions,73 or letters,74 64 E.g., Meyer, Philippians, 221; Vincent, Philippians-Philemon, 148; Kennedy, “Financial,” 43–44; Lohmeyer, Philipper, 185. 65 See Marshall, Enmity, 163, who is somewhat followed by Peterman, Gift, 8, 53–65. Cf. Peter Pilhofer, Die erste christliche Gemeinde Europas (vol. 1 of Philippi; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995), 147–52. 66 Cf. LSJ, s.v. λόγος 1. & 2.; Preisigke, WB 2:30–35; BDAG, s.v. λόγος 2.b.; MM, s.v. λόγος; L&N, s.v. λόγος 57.228; Muraoka, Lexicon, s.v. λόγος. Cf. Deissmann, LAE, 117; Henry G. Meecham, Light from Ancient Letters (London: Allen & Unwin, 1923), 47, 66, 69; Straub, Bildersprache, 46; Horsley, NewDocs 1, 52, #13. 67 E.g., P.NYU II 35: λόγος ῥύσεως (wine account); BGU I 14: λόγος ἀργυρικὸς ληµµάτων καὶ ἀναλωµάτων (account of incomes and expenditures); P.Cair.Zen. II 59268: λόγος γεωργίας (estate account); BGU III 894: λόγ(ος) οἰκοδοµῆς τέκτο(νες) (builders’ account); P.Cair.Zen. II 59253: σου ἴδιος λόγος (private account). Cf. Bogaert, Banques, 56–57. 68 2 Macc 1:14 (εἰς φερνῆς λόγον) is possibly the only such instance in the LXX, unless it signifies here on account of a dowry. The expression εἰς (πᾶν/πάντα) λόγον is found several times, but without financial connotation (cf. 1 Chr 27:1; 2 Chr 8:15, 19:11). In Josephus, it is often used prepositionally in the sense of on account of (e.g., A.J. 1:20: εἰς ἀρετῆς λόγον; A.J. 11:102: εἰς θυσίας λόγον). Other examples are Ign. Phld. 11:2: εἰς λόγον τιµῆς (i.e., on account of honour); Philo, Sacr. 1:90: εἰς τὸν σαλεύοντα λόγον (i.e., into fluctuating reason). In the NT, the phrase εἰς λόγον is only found in Phil 4:15 and 4:17. 69 E.g., O.Bodl. II 1103; O.Fay. 5; P.IFAO III 9; SB XX 14383. 70 E.g., P.Oxy. XLI 2972; BGU IV 1013; P.Bour. 13; P.IFAO III 39. 71 E.g., P.Oxy. III 496; BGU IV 1100.

80

Part One: Philological Survey

from as early as III B.C. (e.g., P.Lille I 53), and as late as A.D. VI (e.g., BGU XII 2143). In the majority of cases, it is immediately followed by the name of the account holder or a noun describing the type of account (in the genitive case).75 It is sometimes found in collocation with other familiar terms such as ἀπέχω or δόσις, as in the following examples: (i) receipt for a rent payment: ἀπέχω παρὰ σοῦ εἰς τὸν λ̣ ό̣γ[ον]76 Ταµύσθας τῆ[ς] Ἀντ[ι]γόνου τ[ὸ] ἐκφόριον (ll. 2–5).77 (ii) tax receipt: δόσις Πτολεµ( ) Μ[ύσ]θου εἰς λόγ(ον) χόρτ(ου) µον(οδεσµίας) φυτ̣ῶ̣ν̣ (l. 1; cf. ll. 9, 17, 21, 26).78 (iii) receipt for a house rent: ἔσχον παρὰ Θέωνος εἰς λόγον ἐνοικίου … δραχµὰς ὀκτώ / (= γίνονται) (δραχµαὶ) η.79

A similar usage is found in epigraphic sources, though much more rarely. For example, in a decree from Teos regulating the management of a fund for the education of local children (ca. III B.C.), the phrase εἰς τὸν λόγον (l. 58) refers to the city treasury into which fines are to be paid if one violates the law in question.80 Similar examples are found in inscriptions from Didyma (IDidyma 488; ca. 159/8 B.C.),81 Miletos (ll. 15–16, IMilet 1.3.147, 205/204 B.C.; l. 10, SEG 36.1048, 165/4 B.C.),82 Termessos (l. 8, SEG 47.1771; ca. A.D. II), and a decree from the island of Leros (ILerosMcCabe 6; 107 B.C.), in which treasurers are instructed to record expenses in the city registry (ἐν̣ γράψ̣ α[σ]θαι εἰς τὸν λόγον, l. 31).83 Likewise, 72

E.g., P.Princ. I 13; SB XX 14576. E.g., P.Ryl. II 142; P.Lond. II 177; P.Mert. I 11. 74 E.g., BGU III 981; SB XVIII 13303; P.Thomas 9. 75 E.g., εἰς λόγον χόρτου (SB XVIII 13303); εἰς λόγον φόρου (P.Mich. X 586); εἰς λ(όγον) Ἀπί(ωνος) (O.Mich. I 48). 76 The phrase εἰς τὸν λόγον can often be abbreviated as εἰς λ or εἰς λογ, especially in ostraca (e.g., P.Oxy. XIV 1650, l. 17; O.Mich. I 32, 33, 35) 77 P.Soter. 8 (A.D. I). Cf. O.Petr. 231; P.Gen. II 88; P.Lond II 178; P.Mich.Mchl. 17; P.Mil. II 27; P.Soter. 17. 78 SB XX 15133 (A.D. II). Note: the exact meaning of µονοδεσµία remains uncertain, though it appears to refer to a tax “collected in kind at a rate of one bundle of hay to the aroura.” P. J. Sijpesteijn, “Receipts for χόρτου µονοδεϲµία and Other Taxes,” ZPE 87 (1991): 264. Cf. P.Ross.Georg. II 34; P.Lond. V 1695; P.Vind.Sal. 16. 79 P.Oxy. X 1262 V (A.D. II). 80 Only the first 36 lines are published in CIG 3059. For the rest of the inscription see Edmond Pottier and Amédée Hauvette-Besnault, “Inscription de Téos,” BCH 4 (1880): 110–21. Cf. Christof Schuler, “Inschriften aus dem Territorium von Myra in Lykien: Istlada,” Chiron 36 (2006): 429. 81 Laum restored εἰς τὸν [κατάλ]ογον (l. 35), while Bogaert simply followed the reading of the ed. pr., εἰς τ[ὸν] [λ]όγον. See Laum II, 159–60, #129B; TextMin 47.26. 82 On SEG 36.1048, see also Peter Herrmann, “Neue Urkunden zur Geschichte von Milet im 2. Jahrhundert v. Chr,” MDAI (I) 15 (1965): 96–103. 83 Cf. Aristote M. Fontrier, “Inscription de Léros,” BCH 19 (1895): 550–52. 73

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

81

on the sarcophagus of a certain Moschos from Lycia the expression εἰς τὸν ΤΟΥΞΟΜΕΝ∆Ι̣ΟΣ (= τοῦ Σοµένδιος) λόγον identifies the account of a fund (probably consecrated to the god Σοµένδις, who is attested in eastern Lycia), into which a fine is to be paid if the tomb is re-used by someone else (ll. 6–7, SEG 56.1751; ca. I B.C.–A.D. I). 84 In several other instances, however, the phrase simply seems to mean on account of (something).85 In sum, there is an overwhelming corpus of documentary evidence attesting that the expression εἰς (τὸν) λόγον frequently makes reference to a financial account. In Roman times, this ledger would have taken the shape of a wax or wooden tablet, a codex of tablets, or a papyrus roll, in which financial and/or commercial transactions, e.g., receipts and expenditures, would have been recorded.86

84

The reading is that proposed in Thomas Marksteiner et al., “Eine dörfliche Siedlung und ein ländlicher Kultplatz im Umland von Limyra,” Chiron 37 (2007): 274–76. Cf. Schuler, “Istlada,” 425–28, #19. 85 Cf. SEG 7.843; SEG 26.1392; SEG 32.1423. 86 See for instance the diptych account CIL III 2, p. 953 (cf. Thilo, Codex, 68–70), the λόγος γεωργίας of SB III 7013, the wax tablet SB X 10551 (λόγος δραχµῶν) containing a list of payments, the military accounts from Vindolanda (e.g., T.Vindol. II 180, 181, 182, 184; cf. Alan K. Bowman, “Roman Military Records from Vindolanda,” Britannia 5 [1974], 360–73), or the beautifully preserved farm-account codex from A.D. IV, P.Kellis IV 96 (cf. J. L. Sharpe III, “The Dakhleh Tablets and some Codicological Consideration,” in Les tablettes à écrire de l’antiquité à l’époque moderne: Actes du colloque du Centre National de Recherche Scientifique, Paris, Institut de France, 10–11 octobre 1990 [ed. E. Lalou; Turnhout: Brepols, 1992], 128–48; Bagnall, P.Kellis IV). For a detailed list of similar surviving artefacts, see appendix 2 in Elizabeth A. Meyer, “Roman Tabulae, Egyptians Christians and the Adoption of the Codex,” Chiron 37 (2007): 295– 347; P. Cauderlier’s inventory of Greek Egyptians tablets in “Les tablettes grecques d’Égypte: Inventaire,” in Les tablettes (ed. Lalou), 63–94; or, most recently, Klass A. Worp, A New Survey of Greek, Coptic, Demotic and Latin Tabulae Preserved from Classical Antiquity (TOP 6; Leiden: Trismegistos Online Publications, 2012). Latin tablets, many of which were accounts, have of course also been found at Pompeii, Herculaneum, Vindolanda, Vindonissa, or Saintes. Discussions of these artefacts are found in Lalou, Les tablettes, 165–230; Elizabeth A. Meyer, Legitimacy and Law in the Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 125–215. Cf. Thilo, Codex, 42–53. Such tablets also appear on many of the rent-paying scenes of Gallic funerary reliefs. See plates XV 2, 4, 10, in J. F. Drinkwater, “Money-Rents and Food-Renders in Gallic Funerary Reliefs,” in The Roman West in the Third Century: Contributions from Archaeology and History (Part 1; eds. A. King and M. Henig; Oxford: B.A.R., 1981), 215–33. Cf. plate XXXVII 2 and XLIII in M. I. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (vol. 1; 2nd and rev. ed; Oxford: Clarendon, 1957), 217, 240.

82

Part One: Philological Survey

b) Documentary Evidence for ἡ λῆ(µ)ψις In non-Jewish and non-Christian literary sources, the term λῆψις (or λῆµψις)87 never seems to have a technical financial connotation, that is, to be used in the sense of income or credit (to an account), except perhaps in the (pseudo?) Platonic dialogue Alcibiades in which, in context, λῆψις refers to royal revenues of gold and silver (καὶ χρυσῷ καὶ ἀργύρῳ; 1.123a).88 Most often, any economic nuance is only conveyed by the nature of the object being received (e.g., Plato, Resp. 346d: ἡ τοῦ µισθοῦ λῆψις; Diodorus Siculus 38/39.7: τῇ λήψει τῶν ἱερῶν χρηµάτων; Plutarch, Gen. Socr. 584C: χρηµάτων λῆψις).89 Similarly, no specific economic connotation is ever observed in Jewish or early Christian literary sources, apart from four instances in the LXX and the Shepherd of Hermas, three of which shall be examined in our section below on the collocation of λόγος, δόσις, and λῆµψις (i.e., Sir 41:19d, 42:7; Herm. Mand. 5.2.2).90 What appears to be the only other example in the LXX is preserved in Proverbs 15:29, wherein λῆµψις is matched with γένηµα (i.e., fruit, agricultural produce): κρείσσων ὀλίγη λῆµψις µετὰ δικαιοσύνης ἢ πολλὰ γενήµατα µετὰ ἀδικίας.91 While T. Muraoka has suggested that λῆµψις herein signifies “income or returns on invested capital or efforts,” nothing in the immediate context seems to give support to such a decisive interpretation.92 At most, one can only conclude that λῆµψις refers to some earnings of undetermined nature.

87

Both are found in documentary sources and early NT manuscripts, though λῆµψις seems to be slightly later. See LSJ, s.v. λῆψις; Klaus Wachtel and Klaus Witte, eds., Die Paulinischen Briefe: Teil 2 (vol. 2 of Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994), 124. 88 The author speaks of βασιλεῖς in general, although, in context, he seems to have specifically the king of Sparta in mind. Another (slightly more ambiguous) example might be found in Resp. 343d wherein, in context, Plato seems to speak of any monetary gain (through commercial activities or taxation) as a λῆψις. Note: the authorship of Alcibiades was never questioned in antiquity and has only been thought spurious since the nineteenth century. See J. Annas, “Plato,” OCD3, p. 1190. 89 Cf. Aristotle, Eth. nic. 4.1.7: ἡ δὲ λῆψις καὶ ἡ φυλακὴ κτῆσις µᾶλλον; Eth. nic. 4.1.15–16: οὐ γάρ ἐστι τοῦ µὴ τιµῶντος τὰ χρήµατα ἡ τοιαύτης λῆψις. 90 The word is very seldom used in any case. With the exception of the four instances abovementioned (as well as Prov 15:27, see footnote below), it is only found in Josephus though without any economic connotation (cf. A.J. 18:104, 294; Vita 1:224). 91 I.e., better a little revenue with righteousness than much produce with unrighteousness. This proverb is not found in the Hebrew text and thus not translated in modern versions. 92 Muraoka, Lexicon, s.v. λῆµψις. The term is also employed in Prov 15:27, though this time to indicate the acceptance of bribes: ἐξόλλυσιν ἑαυτὸν ὁ δωρολήµπτης ὁ δὲ µισῶν δώρων λήµψεις σῴζεται (i.e., he who takes bribes shall destroy himself, but he who despises the receipt of gifts shall live).

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

83

The term is even rarer in documentary sources, especially in inscriptions. In the lex portorii Asiae (SEG 39.1180), the customs law from Ephesus, it indicates the seizure of a pledge (ἐνεχύρου λῆψις),93 just as in the petition P.Oxy. I 71.94 Meanwhile, in the second honorary decree for the benefactress Archippe from Kyme (SEG 33.1039; post 130 B.C.),95 the phrase περί τε τῆς τῶν διαφόρων λήψεως καὶ τοῦ ἐκτοκισµοῦ αὐτῶν (l. 72) refers to the collection of interests for a loan of one talent made by the patroness after her death.96 The term is hardly more common in papyri and is generally employed to acknowledge the receipt of some merchandise, inheritance, or payment.97 This is the case in the arbitration P.Lond. V 1708 (l. 246; A.D. 567–568),98 and in the official letter BGU IV 1027 (π̣ [ε]ρ̣ὶ̣ ἀχύρων λήµψεως; Frag. 2, l. 15; A.D. 360).99 This sense is also observed in O.Mich. II 889 (A.D. 289), a receipt for grain delivery: ὑπ(ὲρ) ἀνν(ώνης) λήψεως ὀνό(µατος) Σαραπάµονος καὶ Τ̣ ετᾶ.100 It is only in the late account SB XXIV 16045 (C.E. VI–VII) that the term could possibly indicate a credit operation, i.e., the receipt of some payment into an account.101 However, the reading of the

93 See ll. 56, 58, 81, 88. The text of this inscription has been revised several times since its initial publication in 1986. See ed. pr. Helmut Engelmann and Dieter Knibbe, “Das Monumentum Ephesenum: Ein Vorbericht,” EA 8 (1986): 19–32; idem, “Das Zollgesetz der Provinz Asia: Eine neue Inschrift aus Ephesos,” EA 14 (1989): 1–206 (text, commentary and translation). For the latest, most thorough revision and up-to-date commentary, see M. Cottier et al., eds., The Customs Law of Asia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). 94 Cf. MM, s.v. λῆµψις; Preisigke, WB 2:18. 95 This inscription, which was found in 1979, belongs to a block containing three decrees in honour of Archippe. Five decrees dedicated to the same lady had already been discovered and published by H. Engelmann in IKyme 13. The date is that suggested by J. and L. Robert, BE (1968): 506, #445. 96 Cf. l. 103 in Hasan Malay, “Three Decrees from Kyme,” EA 2 (1989): 6–7, #2. 97 One must not confuse the dative of λῆµψις, i.e., λῆµψει, with the second person singular, future indicative form of λαµβάνω, which is more common (e.g., P.Oxy. IV 724; P.Amh. II 145). 98 The text of this legal papyrus is very long and convoluted. Here in context, however, λῆµψις clearly refers to the receipt of a portion of the family inheritance: ἐκ πατρῴας καὶ µητρῴας κληρονοµίας ἀφ’ οἱο\υ/δήποτε εἴδους καὶ ἀφ’ ἧς οὔσης λήµψεως \ὑπ(ὲρ) αὐτῶν/ (ll. 245–246). Cf. the summary by the ed. pr., H. I. Bell, P.Lond. V 1708, p. 117. 99 Cf. Preisigke, WB 2:18. 100 I.e., for the receipt of annona in the name of Sarapamon and Tetas. 101 Incidentally, in (pseudo-)Demosthenes’ declamation Contra Thimotheum (Or. 49.5), the substantive participle τὰ ληφθέντα (from λαµβάνω) appears to refer specifically to withdrawals from a banker’s account (as opposed to deposits, τὰ τεθέντα). Cf. Bogaert, Banques, 378–79.

84

Part One: Philological Survey

phrase (ὑπὲρ) λ̣ ήψ̣ εω̣ ς το̣ [ῦ δεινός (?)] (l. 6) is too uncertain and the papyrus too fragmented to permit any definite conclusion.102 c) Documentary Evidence for ἡ δόσις Unlike λῆµψις, δόσις is well attested in literary sources, though it rarely has a financial connotation. Just as with λῆµψις, any particular economic nuance of the term is primarily dependent on the nature of the object conveyed as well as on the overall context. For example, in Thucydides’ Hist. 1.137.3, δόσις χρηµάτων refers to a gift of money that Themistocles gives to a naukleros to help him flee Greece in secret, while in Hist. 1.143.2 δόσις µισθοῦ stands for the payment of mercenaries’ wages.103 Much more suggestive is an episode in Plutarch’s biography of Cato the Younger in which δόσις indicates payments, or gifts of money (donationes?), made to citizens from accounts of the public treasury at Rome.104 As Cato was returning home on his last day as quaestor, Plutarch relates, he was informed that a certain magistrate was being constrained by prominent friends of his to settle their debts with the fiscus: ἐκβιάζονται γράψαι τινὰ δόσιν χρηµάτων ὀφειλοµένων (Cat. Min. 18.3–4). Upon returning to the treasury (ταµιεῖον, i.e., aerarium), Cato seized the tablets (τὰς δέλτους) and ex-

102

A similar usage might be found in the fragment SB XX 14721 (II B.C.E.). Although the editors are unsure about the nature and significance of this document, the proximity of the terms θησαυρός and διάφορος (probably meaning a sum of money or some interests here; cf. LSJ, s.v. διάφορος II.4.b.), and the expression εἰς τὸ βασιλι[κόν] (i.e., the royal treasury, most likely; cf. LSJ, s.v. βασιλικός II.3.), suggest a financial connotation for λήψεως here (l. 7). 103 Cf. Herodotus, Hist. 1.61: τῇ δόσι τῶν χρηµάτων (it is not very clear whether these gifts to the tyrant Pisistratus were voluntary or tributary contributions – the latter seems more likely); Diodorus Siculus 29.17.1: οἱ δὲ Ἀχαιοὶ τὴν δόσιν τῶν χρηµάτων ἀποδοκιµάσαντες οὐ προσεδέξαντο τὴν δωρεάν (i.e., rejecting the financial contribution, the Athenians did not accept the gift – δόσις and δωρεά are used synonymously here, it seems); Vettius Valens, antho. 4.11.11: καὶ τὴν Αἴγυπτον διελθόντες, διδασκάλοις φιλαργύροις περιπεσόντες, τὰς µὲν τῶν χρηµάτων δόσεις ἐποιησάµεθα διὰ τὴν περὶ τὸ ἔργον ἐπιθυµίαν (i.e., and coming to Egypt, we fell to avaricious teachers, to whom we paid money because of our enthusiasm for the work). We shall treat instances of δόσις in Aristotle in our next section on the collocation of λόγος, δόσις, and λῆψις. 104 The first mention of δόσεις alongside references to remissions of debts and taxes which could be voted by the senate is rather ambiguous: καὶ παραφυλάττων [Cato, here] τοὺς ἑτοίµως καὶ πρὸς χάριν ὀφληµάτων καὶ τελῶν ἀνέσεις ἢ δόσεις οἷς ἔτυχεν ἐπιψηφιζοµένους (Cat. Min. 18:1). B. Perrin (LCL) translated δόσεις by “promiscuous gifts,” but it is not entirely clear to us what she meant by promiscuous. Perhaps, these δόσεις should be considered as some exceptional donationes (i.e., bribes, from a modern perspective) that certain magistrates would grant to the people to secure their political support.

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

85

punged whatever δόσις had been entered fraudulently. 105 On this occasion, the term thus seems to bear a more specific connotation and could be understood as designating some instalment credited to the state’s accounts. In the LXX, δόσις generally signifies gift, just as in Philo (e.g., Leg. 3:26, 64; Cher. 1:84), or in James 1:17, the only other occurrence of the word in the NT.106 Josephus, likewise, frequently employs the term in the sense of a monetary gift, such as in A.J. 12:32–33 where it refers to Ptolemy Philadelphus’ generous grant (τὴν τῶν διαφόρων δόσιν) of more than four hundred and sixty talents to redeem Jewish slaves living in Egypt.107 In one instance in the LXX, however, it clearly refers to an allowance of grain which the priests receive and consume (ἤσθιον τὴν δόσιν; Gen 47:22).108 This sense is also found in Spec. 4:195 wherein Philo makes mention of the wages paid to artisans. While an economic sense of the word is unusual in Jewish literary sources, it is very frequent in documentary sources, as has long been noted,109 even though compound nouns such as ἐπίδοσις (voluntary contribution),110 ἀπόδοσις (payment),111 or ἔκδόσις (loan, especially maritime),112 105

Cato’s scrupulousness was indeed legendary. In the preceding chapter (Cat. Min. 17.2), Plutarch explains that Cato had striven to restore good management practices at the treasury: he would require due payment of those with outstanding debts to the state and would promptly reimburse those to whom the state was indebted. Note: we follow the LCL Greek text here. The Teubner edition reads: τινὰ δόσιν χρηµάτων ὀφειλοµένην (which would seem to imply that the friends of Marcellus, the magistrate mentioned here, sought to be reimbursed of sums which the state did not really owe them). 106 The term does not appear in the apostolic fathers except in Herm., Mand. 5.2.2, which we shall treat in our section of the collocation of λόγος, δόσις, and λῆψις. The term is mostly employed in Wisdom literature (whose style James somewhat imitates), Sirach especially (e.g., Prov. 21:14, 25:14; 1 Esd 2:4; Tob 2:14, recension II; Sir 1:10; 4:3; 7:31; 11:17; 18:15, 16, 18; 20:10, 14; 26:14; 35:8, 9; 41:23; 42:3). Cf. Muraoka, Lexicon, s.v. δόσις. 107 Cf. Let. Aris. 1.26 (the same episode is related from 1.1–28 with references to the royal δόσις at 1.20 and 1.22). See also A.J. 1:181; 4:23; 15:196; B.J. 1:514. 108 See the relevant footnote in our section on δόµα. Cf. Muraoka, Lexicon, s.v. δόσις. 109 Preisigke, WB 1:615; MM, s.v. δόσις. Cf. LSJ, s.v. δόσις II.5. Beauchet had already observed that, in ancient Greek contracts, δόσις represents “des versements à compte.” Similarly, Chantraine gives the glosses “don réalisé, legs, versement,” for δόσις. Beauchet, Histoire du droit privé de la république athénienne (4 vols; Paris: Chevalier-Marescq, 1897), 4:214; Chantraine, DELG, s.v. δίδωµι, 279. Cf. LSJ, s.v. δόσις II.5; DGE, s.v. δόσις III. Accessed December 2012. Online: http://dge.cchs.csic.es/xdge/δόσις. 110 The most thorough treatment on such public contributions remains Léopold Migeotte, Les souscriptions publiques dans les cités grecques (Genève: Droz, 1992). Cf. idem, L’emprunt public dans les cités grecques: Recueil des documents et analyse critique (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1984). 111 E.g., PSI VII 801; SB XX 14315. The verb ἀποδίδωµι itself often has the sense of repaying what is due. See LSJ, s.v. ἀποδίδωµι; MM, s.v. ἀποδίδωµι. Cf. Beauchet, Histoire, 4:499.

86

Part One: Philological Survey

are actually much more common.113 Other senses of δόσις are of course also found. It can thus signify the delivery of some merchandise,114 a petition (διὰ λιβέλλου δόσεως),115 or official correspondences.116 Alternatively, it can refer to the legal execution of a testament during one’s lifetime in the form of a fictitious sale (ὠνὴ ἀποστασίου, later called ὠνὴ δόσεως).117 The latter sense seems to have derived from Athenian law,118 but it is also observed in Crete in V B.C. (IKret 4.72, col. 10, l. 25),119 in Lycia in III B.C. (IKosSegre 56),120 and at Delphi in II B.C.121

112

Cf. Beauchet, Histoire, 4:272; Raymond Bogaert, “Banquiers, courtiers et prêts maritimes à Athènes et à Alexandrie,” in Trapezitica, 209; repr. from ChrEg 40 (1965): 144. It could also refer to an act of marriage. See Uri Yiftach-Firanko, “Judaean Desert Marriage Documents and Ekdosis in the Greek Law of the Roman Period,” in Law in the Documents of the Judaean Desert (SupJSJ 96; eds. R. Katzoff and D. Schaps; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 67–84; idem, “Regionalism and Legal Documents: The Case of Oxyrhynchos,” in Symposion 2003: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Rauischholzhausen, 30. September–3. Oktober 2003) (ed. H.-A. Rupprecht; Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2006), 347–48. 113 Cf. Chantraine, DELG, s.v. δίδωµι, 279. 114 E.g., SB X 10724; BGU XVIII 2747; P.Kellis IV 96 (ll. 238, 240). 115 E.g., P.Oxy. XVI 1880, 1881; P.Rain.Cent. 99 R. Cf. Preisigke, WB 1:615. 116 E.g., P.Würzb. 18. 117 E.g., P.Stras. II 83; UPZ II 180; BGU III 993. See Wilcken, UPZ II, p. 147; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 208; P. W. Pestman, “Agoranomoi et actes agoranomiques: Krokodilopolis et Pathyris (145–88 av. J.-C.),” in Textes et études de papyrologie grecque, démotique et copte (P. L. Bat. 23) (ed. P. W. Pestman; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985), 29–30. Cf. Preisigke, WB 1:614. Wilken expressed some doubt on the reading ὠνὴ δόσεως in P.Stras. II 83, however. See Ulrich Wilcken, “IX. P. Strassb. II (s. oben S. 68),” APF 7 (1924): 88. Cf. Ernst Rabel, “Nachgeformte Rechtsgeschäfte,” ZRG 28 (1907): 316; Egon Weiss, Griechisches Privatrecht auf rechtsvergleichender Gundlage (vol. 1; Leipzig: F. Meiner, 1923), 396 (n. 138), 411 (n. 194). 118 Beauchet explains that, in legal terms, δόσις signified “la disposition testamentaire,” being synonymous with διαθήκη, so that a bequest κατὰ δόσιν (e.g., Isocrates, Or. 19.45, 48; Isaeus, Or. 4.1, 7; Aristotle, Pol. 1309a 24) was the opposite of an inheritance κατὰ γένος (i.e., ab intestat). Sometimes it could also refer more generally to any kind of donations, though these were rarer than legacies. See Beauchet, Histoire, 3:122–24, 656. Cf. Benveniste, Le vocabulaire, 1:68. 119 Cf. Bile, Le dialecte, 322; Willetts, Gortyn, 48, 76. 120 This decree by the citizens of Telmessos, which officially acknowledges the donation of estate properties (ἔ[γ]κτησιν οἰκίων καὶ ἐγγαίων, ll. 6–7), perfectly illustrates the legal connotation of δόσις. Indeed, it concludes with the following clause legally reinforcing the donation: (ἀναγράψαι δὲ τὸ ψήθισµα τὸν ἄρχον̣ τ̣ [α] εἰς στήλην λιθίνην … ) ἵνα κυρία ἦι ἡ δόσις δεδοµένη (l. 12). 121 In at least four inscriptions (GDI 2.1759, 1878, 1891, 2202), manumitted slaves (if they remain childless) are explicitly prohibited from making any δόσις (i.e., bequest) to anyone other than the offspring of their former master. Interestingly, in two of these inscriptions (GDI 2.1759, 1878), such δόσις is equated to an ὠνή.

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

87

Moulton and Milligan had initially adduced thirteen documents in which δόσις assumes the sense of payment or instalment (for something that is due).122 This understanding can now be confirmed by a more recent examination of a much larger body of evidence, in which, in about 80% of cases, this sense is unambiguously observed.123 Sometimes abbreviated as δό,124 δόσις is found in receipts of various kinds,125 tax-farming leases,126 accounts,127 loan or sale agreements,128 apprenticeship contracts,129 official and private letters,130 decrees,131 building contracts,132 and temple accounts,133 as early as IV B.C. (e.g., IG I³ 365) and as late as A.D. VI (e.g., P.Oxy. XVI 1970). This clearly suggests a widespread and enduring usage amongst the populations of the Greek East, which the following examples will serve to illustrate. In P.Mich. II 123, the register of Tebtynis for the sixth year of Claudius’ reign (A.D. 46), δόσις (διά τοῦ δεῖνος) ὑπὲρ µισθώ(σεως) refers to a rent instalment paid into the grapheion account (col. 11, l. 9; cf. l. 13).134 Similarly, in SB XVI 12421 (A.D. II), a fragmentary pawnbroker’s account, δόσις is repeatedly employed to record the loan payment granted to customers.135 On other occasions, δόσις simply stands for the remuneration (in kind or cash) of labourers.136 At times the payment mentioned is in kind, especially in applications for the dole (ἡ τοῦ σιτηρεσίου/ σίτου

122 P.Petr. III 41, 46; P.Oxy III 474, IV 724, VI 912, VIII 1127; P.Flor. II 133; Ostr 6 in Fayûm Papyri, p. 322; P.Lond. 163; BGU II 473, IV 1151 and 1156; Syll 540. See MM, s.v. δόσις. 123 We examined 159 instances in 117 papyri and 340 instances in 110 inscriptions. In 10% of the papyri and 15 % of the inscriptions, an exact reading could not be ascertained due to the fragmentary nature of the document. 124 E.g., P.Aberd. 27; P.Cair.Masp. II 67145. 125 E.g., P.Mich. XVIII 792; P.Oxy. XXXVI 2780; O.Fay. 6; SB XVI 12601, XVI 12602. 126 E.g., UPZ I 112. Cf. Preisigke, WB 1:615. To be more precise, this is an offer to contract a tax-farming lease. 127 E.g., O.Mich. I 110; P.Lond. V 1673; PSI VI 688 R; P.Cair.Masp. II 67145. 128 E.g., BGU IV 1151 II Z. 26–48; P.Oxy.Hels. 43; P.Mich. III 182; BGU IV 1146. Cf. Allan C. Johnson, Roman Egypt to the Reign of Diocletian (vol. 2 of An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome; ed. T. Frank; Paterson: Pageant Books, 1959), 357–58, #195. 129 E.g., P.Oxy. IV 724. 130 E.g., P.Bad. IV 47; P.Col. X 282; SB XVI 12508; P.Alex. 2; P.Lond. V 1786. 131 E.g., IPriene 57; IMilet 1.3.147. 132 E.g., IG VII 3073. 133 E.g., IG IV² 1.110; 1.109. 134 Cf. Preisigke, WB 1:615. 135 Cf. Johnson, Roman Egypt, 458–59, #289. 136 E.g., P.Oxy. XLIX 3515, 3516, XXXVI 2780; P.Berl.Salmen 1.

88

Part One: Philological Survey

δόσις).137 The number of instalments paid can often be indicated by a letter preceding δόσις, as in the following salary account, P.NYU II 30 (A.D. II):138 [λ]ό̣γ(ος) σα̣ λ̣ αρίου {(δρ.)} κα̣ ὶ̣ [ὀψ]ωνί̣[ο]υ ὧν ἔσχοµεν̣· α̣ ʹ δόσις (δρ.) ω̣ · β̣ ʹ δόσις (δρ.) τµ· γʹ δόσις (δρ.) σξ· δʹ δόσις (δρ.) σ

As noted earlier, δόσις can also be found in collocation with the prepositional phrase εἰς λόγον, as in P.Vind.Sal. 16 (A.D. II), which records a remittance into an account of transport expenses: δόσε̣ι ς̣ ̣ Χαρίας Θαµῖνις εἰς λόγον φολλέ(τρων) (= φορέτρων) Κανοπ[ιά]τος κα(ὶ) ἄλλων … ὀβωλοὺς̣ ὀκδώ (ll. 1–3).139 Beyond financial documents, δόσις occurs numerous times in the legal formula of rental agreements wherein the lessee pledges to pay the number of agreed-upon instalments. This is well illustrated in SPP XX 53 (A.D. III), a lease for the share of two thirds of a house: ἀποδώσω σοι κατ’ ἔτος ἐν τέ[σ]σαρσει δόσεσει (= δόσεσιν) (l. 15).140 Later, in the Byzantine era, δόσις is frequently employed in the dative in an equally common formulaic legal clause, which is often found in sale contracts such as BGU XVII 2698 (A.D. VII): µαρτυρῶ δὲ καὶ τῇ δόσει τοῦ χρυσίου τῶν νοµισµάτων τριῶν (ll. 43–44; cf. ll. 37–38).141 It may have also been used in the accusative in another type of formulaic clause, although only two (earlier) examples seem to have survived: (µέχρι τοῦ πληρωθῆναι τὸ προκείµενον κεφάλαιον) … οὐδεµί(αν) δόσιν κοιλὴ(ν) ποιούµενοι (BGU IV 1151 2.V., ll. 32–33; cf. BGU IV 1146, l. 15, I B.C.).142

137 E.g., P.Oxy. XL 2900, 2901, 2904, 2906. Cf. P.Stras. V 308 in Paul Schubert, Vivre en Égypte Gréco-romaine: Une sélection de papyrus (Vevey: Éditions de l’Aire, 2000), 138–39, #40. 138 Cf. Bruce E. Nielsen and Klass A. Worp, “New Papyri from the New York University Collection: III,” ZPE 140 (2003): 141. For similar examples, see PSI VI 688 R; P.Wash.Univ. II 90; O.Mich. I 110. 139 Cf. also the second hand on l. 4: δόσις Χαρίας Χαρίου ἐ(πὶ) λόκου [= λόγου] φ̣ όρο̣ υ φυτο͂ν [= φυτῶν] καὶ ἄ•̣ ω̣ ν̣ εἰδ̣ ῶν. 140 See Johnson, Roman Egypt, 276, #168. Cf. P.Alex. 2; BGU IV 1122; P.Oxy. VI 912, VIII 1127, XIV 1694, 1632, XLIV 3200; P.Coll.Youtie II 68; BGU XIX 2810; P.Yale I 69. 141 Cf. BGU XII 2180 (loan agreement); P.Bad. IV 91 A; CPR VII 40, 47; SB I 5174, 5175, XVIII 13173; SPP XX 110, 121; P.Gen. IV 190. 142 I.e., without allowing any payment to lapse. Cf. LSJ, s.v. κοῖλος II.3.

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

89

Significantly, the sense gift, which is held by many to be the primary sense of δόσις,143 and by which, presumably, one ought to understand a voluntary contribution given out of altruistic motives (i.e., not in exchange for services or commodities) and without a sense of legal obligation,144 occurs very rarely in papyri. Yet, even when δόσις does signify a gift, it is never without legal and economic implications. This is the case in P.Grenf. II 68 (cf. FIRA2 3.98; A.D. 247), a deed of gift in which δόσις (l. 9) and χάρις (l. 10; cf. χαρίζεσθ[αι], l. 3) are used interchangeably to indicate the testamentary gift (donatio) of a fourth share in a grave-digging business.145 In this case, the donatio entitles its recipient to a participation in a particular commercial activity and, understandably, to a share of the profits thereby generated. Similarly, in P.Dura 18 (A.D. 87), another deed of gift (donatio), δόσις (ll. 22, 28, 30) makes reference to the return of a mortgaged property to a debtor on the basis of numerous services rendered to the creditor (l. 23: ἀνθ’ ὧν ἔφη [εὐχρ]ηστηθῆναι αὐ[τ]ὸ̣ν̣ ὑπ’ α[ὐτῆς ἐµ]πλ̣είοσιν̣; cf. l. 6).146 Here too, one should resist the view that this donatio was purely motivated by the generosity of the benefactor. Indeed, the legal and economic context rather suggests an economic transaction, whereby the donatio signified both the release from an outstanding debt (acceptilatio)147 and a transfer of ownership rights through a testamentary

143 BDAG, s.v. δόσις; L&N, s.v. δόσις 57.73; Muraoka, Lexicon, s.v. δόσις. Cf. E. Ziebarth, “∆όσις,” PW[1] 5:1598–1603. 144 See the aforementioned OED definition in our section on δόµα. BDAG only gives a gloss. 145 P.Grenf. II 70 is its duplicate. Cf. C. Bradford Welles, “Dura Pergament 21: Hypothek und Exekution am Euphratufer im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr.,” ZRG 56 (1936): 111; Johnson, Roman Egypt, 324, #193; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 399 (n. 4). Note: Welles understood the donor to be the father of the recipient, but onomastics seems to suggest otherwise. 146 The document was initially inventoried as P.Dura 21. The history of this loan is convoluted. The present debtor had originally contracted the loan jointly with her husband. When the latter died (presumably), she ceded to the creditor the mortgaged property, which, apart from three slaves, he now returns to the widow who has in the meantime become his mother-in-law. For a detailed discussion of the legal aspects of this document, see Welles, “Dura Pergament 21”; Ernst Schönbauer, “Rechtshistorische Urkundenstudien zum griechischen Recht im Zweistromlande: I. PG. Dura 21,” APF 12 (1937): 194–212; Raphael Taubenschlag, “Papyri and Parchments from the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire outside Egypt,” JJP 3 (1949): 57, #4; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 399 (n. 3); William L. Westermann, The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1955), 123. 147 An acceptilatio consisted of a formulaic recognition and subsequent release of a debt. See R. Leonhard, “Acceptilatio,” PW[1] 1:138; Berger, EDRL, s.v. acceptilatio, 339–40; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 425.

90

Part One: Philological Survey

disposition.148 Significantly, we were unable to find any other example of δόσις in the sense of gift (donatio) in papyri – P.Cair.Masp. II 67141 might preserve the only other occurrence (see below).149 Unsurprisingly, the economic connotation of δόσις is as frequent in inscriptions as it is in papyri. The term is particularly common in decrees, inscribed temple accounts (λόγος ἱεροποιῶν/ναοποιῶν), or building contracts, in which it often has the sense of instalment or payment (for some accomplished work).150 This can be readily observed in the accounts of temple treasuries at Athens as early as mid-V B.C. (e.g., IG I³ 365, 369), and at Delphi from IV B.C. (e.g., IDelphes 2.31, 2.59, 2.62). For instance, in IG I³ 369 (V B.C.), δόσις makes reference to financial loans granted to generals and their associates out of the treasury of Athena Polias.151 In other inscriptions, it stands for the instalment paid to contractors for restoration work completed on a temple,152 or indicates the payment of wages to those engraving the decree.153 A similar usage of δόσις occurs numerous times in accounts from around the same period (IV–II B.C.) at Epidaurus (e.g., IG IV² 1.103, 106, 108, 109, 110), Lebadeia (e.g., IG VII 3073),154 and Delos (e.g., IG XI 2.142, 158; IDelos 3.360, 4.402).155 In Delian documents regulating building contracts, however, T. Homolle noticed a clear distinction between δόσις, the “à-compte” (i.e., advance payment) for the completion of a project, and µισθός, the daily wage paid to artisans and labourers for the achievement of smaller tasks.156 148 Cf. Zimmermann, Obligations, 477–82; Buckland, Text-Book, 253–54; Berger, EDRL, s.v. donatio, 442–43; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 399–400. 149 Χάρις, in the Roman period, and προσφορά, in Byzantine times, are more commonly employed to indicate a donatio. Cf. Taubenschlag, LGRE, 399. 150 Cf. Beauchet, Histoire, 4:214. 151 Rosivach suggested that the purpose of these loans was to finance the military expedition of the Athenian fleet (cf. the similar inscription IG I³ 365). Vincent J. Rosivach, “Manning the Athenian Fleet, 433–426 BC,” AJAH 10 (1985 [1993]): 43. For a translation and a brief commentary, see Charles W. Fornara, Archaic Times to the End of the Peloponnesian War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 150–53, #134. 152 IDelphes 2.31, 2.32, 2.59, 2.62, which all date from IV B.C. 153 IPriene 57 (III B.C.): τοῖς µισθωσαµένοις δότω τὰς δόσεις ἀπὸ τῶν εἰς τὴν διοίκησι[ν] (l. 9); Philippe Gauthier, “Nouvelles inscriptions de Claros: Décrets d’Aigai et de Mylasa pour des juges colophoniens,” REG 112 (1999): 4: καὶ τῶι µισθωσαµένωι δοῦναι τὴν δόσιν (ll. 50–51; III B.C.). 154 For a translation and a commentary, see Marie-Christine Hellmann, ed., Choix d’inscriptions architecturales grecques (Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, 1999), 52–55, #13. 155 Cf. IG XI 2.161, 163, 199, 203, 204; IDelos 3.290, 291, 296, 314, 320, 364–366; 4.372, 384, 399, 401bis, 406, 442–444, 461, 462, 507. For IDelos 4.402, see Hellmann, Choix, 69–70, #19. 156 Théophile Homolle, “Comptes et inventaires des temples déliens en l’année 279,” BCH 14 (1890): 464, 466. Cf. ibid., 393–94.

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

91

Beside temple accounts and construction contracts, δόσις also appears in public decrees, such as IMilet 1.3.147 (205/204 B.C.), which records a resolution to address a famine through a public loan.157 Here δόσις τοῦ ἀργυρίου/ τοῦ σιτηρεσίου (ll. 19–20, 58) corresponds to the city’s repayment of monthly or yearly annuities to the citizens in reimbursement of their initial loan to the public treasury. 158 Meanwhile, in the Hadrianic decree concerning the public bank of Pergamum (OGI 2.484; ca. A.D. 129), δόσις τοῦ ἀργυροῦ νοµίσµατος (l. 41) refers to the payment of silver coinage in exchange for local currency. 159 Overall, we have found δόσις to mean instalment or payment in almost 60% of the cases in which it is inscribed on stone.160 Naturally, the term can also have the more general sense of gift.161 For instance, it can designate a bequest (IGUR I 246; ca. A.D. 313),162 a free distribution of corn (IG II² 1272; III B.C.),163 the provision of oil by the Gerousia to local citizens (IMagnMai 116; A.D. II), 164 a bequest for the organisation of festivals (IG IX 1.694, III B.C.; MAMA 3.50, A.D. II), 165 the consecration of a

157

Cf. TextMin 31.35. Cf. Bogaert, Banques, 257–59; Andreas M. Andreades, A History of Greek Public Finance (vol. 1; trans. C. N. Brown; New York: Arno, 1979), 177–78; Migeotte, L’emprunt, 304–11, #97. 159 The local money changers operated a monopoly for the exchange of currencies at Pergamum. Tradesmen dealt with local customers using a token copper currency, which they exchanged into silver denarii to pay their suppliers. This is what the δόσις τοῦ ἀργυροῦ νοµίσµατος seems to refer to here. See ed. pr. H. von Prott, “Römischer Erlass betreffend die öffentliche Bank von Pergamon,” MDAI (A) 27 (1902): 78–89. Cf. Bruno Keil, “Zu zwei Pergamenischen Inschriften,” MDAI (A) 29 (1904): 73–75; G. Lafaye, IGRR 4.352; James H. Oliver, Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1989), pp. 208–15, #84; A. D. Macro, “Imperial Provisions for Pergamum: OGIS 484,” GRBS 17.2 (1976): 169–79. 160 In total, we have examined 340 instances of the word in 110 inscriptions. In 15% of cases, the inscription was too fragmentary to allow a definite reading. 161 This is the case in only 10% of the instances we have examined, however. 162 Cf. IG XIV 956; Laum II, 155–58, #213. Here the expression κατὰ δόσιν specifically has the sense by will, which Laum translates as “gemäss der Stiftungsurkunde.” Cf. LSJ, s.v. δόσις, II.2.; Beauchet, Histoire, 3:122–24. 163 I.e., περὶ τὴν τοῦ σ[ί]του δόσιν (l. 12). 164 Cf. Gaston Deschamps and Georges Cousin, “Inscription de Magnésie du Méandre,” BCH 12 (1888): 204–23. 165 IG IX.1.694: καθὼς ἐν τ[ᾶι] δ[ό]σει γέγραπται (l. 82). Cf. Laum II, 5–9, #1B. MAMA 3.50: ἐτίας (= αἰτίας) ἀφῆκεν τούτων ὁ Ἄνγλους τ[ῇ̣] κώµῃ δόσεως δραχµὰς χιλίας διακοσίας ἰς τὸ λανβάνειν τὴν κώµην κατ’ ἔτος ἐν τῇ γενοµέν[ῃ] παννυχίδι (i.e., thus Anglus acquitted himself of the responsibility of a donation of one thousand and two hundred drachmas to the village towards the organisation of the annual festival; ll. 10–16). 158

92

Part One: Philological Survey

vineyard to a divinity (IG X 2.1.259; A.D. I), 166 a donation for the construction of a stoa (IStratonikeia 226; A.D. I), 167 unspecified civic benefactions (IStratonikeia 303; A.D. II), 168 a summa honoraria (McCabe Kaunos 4; A.D. II), 169 the honorific bestowal of a golden crown (IG XII 1.1032; II B.C.),170 a dowry (IG XII 5.872; IV B.C.),171 or an imperial monetary grant (IG II² 1097; A.D. 124/5).172 At other times, it is quite difficult to make a clear distinction between the senses gift and payment, especially when δόσις refers to the settlement of a promised contribution.173 This succinct overview nonetheless clearly illustrates the fact that the common understanding of δόσις as simply mean166

Cf. Georges Daux, “Trois inscriptions de la Grèce du Nord,” CRAI 116.3 (1972): 478–87. ∆όσις is also found written on dedicated objects such as vases or columns (e.g., IG II² 11217, 11218). 167 I.e., ἐπεί τε δόσι ἀρ[γυ]ρίου καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ τῇ κ[α]τασκευῇ στοᾶς τῆς κα[λου]µένης Φλαβιανῆς (ll. 6–9). 168 I.e., δόσει τῶν εἰς τὰ ἔργα ἀ[ρ]γυρίων (l. 9). The τὰ ἔργα here refers to sacrifices, banquets and other distributions. 169 I.e., ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ στεφανηφορήσας µὲν ἐπὶ ἀργυρίου πολυτελεῖ δόσει (l. 6). Cf. Peter Herrmann, “Zwei Inschriften von Kaunos und Baba Dağ,” OAth 10 (1971): 36–39; J. and L. Robert, BE (1972): 464–65, #430. Note: a summa honoraria represented a magistrate’s voluntary contribution upon assuming office (e.g., for the purpose of organizing games). See OLD, s.v. summa 2.c.; idem, s.v. honorarius; Berger, EDRL, s.v. honorarium, 488; Jean-Pierre Waltzing, Étude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains: Depuis les origines jusqu’à la chute de l’Empire d’Occident (vol. 1; Louvain: Peeters, 1895; repr. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1970), 453–54. 170 I.e., δόσις τοῦ στεφάνου (l. 33). Cf. Évelyne Samama, Les médecins dans le monde grec: Sources épigraphiques sur la naissance d’un corps médical (Genève: Librairie Droz, 2003), 217–19, #118. 171 I.e., προικ[ῶν] δόσεις (l. 1). This sense is strongly suggested by the proximity of προίξ, but remains uncertain since “il n’y a aucune ‘constitution de dot’ stricto sensu dans ces quarante-sept contrats.” Roland Étienne, Ténos II: Ténos et les Cyclades du milieu du IVe siècle av. J.C. au milieu du IIIe siècle ap. J.C. (Athènes: École française d’Athènes, 1990), 53. 172 Oliver initially suggested that δόσις refers to a legacy, but on the basis of more accurate restorations Follet persuasively demonstrated that it consists of a donation from Hadrian. See James H. Oliver, “An Inscription concerning the Epicurean School at Athens,” TAPA 69 (1938): 494–99; Simone Follet, “Lettres d’Hadrien aux épicuriens 2 d’Athènes (14.2–14.3.125): SEG III 226 + IG II 1097,” REG 107 (1994): 158–71. Cf. J. and L. Robert, BE (1940): 14–15, #48. 173 This is the case in the Larissan decree regarding the organisation of an ἐπίδοσις to resorb the debts of the city (possibly Krannon, its name is not mentioned). The word δούρραντα (l. 22), which Béquignon and Fränkel thought to be the equivalent of δωρήσαντα (= “schenkend”), contrasts with δόσις (l. 31), which can be understood as referring to the actual payment of the contribution pledged (so Migeotte, it seems, who translates “les sommes”). See Yves Béquignon, “Études Thessaliennes: VII. Inscriptions de Thessalie,” BCH 59 (1935): 36–51; Migeotte, L’emprunt, 113–16, #32; Ernst Fränkel, “Zur griechischen Wortforschung,” Glotta 35.1 (1956): 91.

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

93

ing gift is too restrictive. It confirms É. Benveniste’s assertion that the five Greek terms usually translated as gift (or don), which are δώς, δῶρον, δωρεά, δόσις, and δωτίνη, could embrace diverse meanings ranging from “la pure notion verbale, ‘le donner’, à la ‘prestation contractuelle, imposée par les obligations d’un pacte, d’une alliance, d’une amitié, d’une hospitalité’.”174 It also confirms that two keys to identify the right connotation of δόσις are its syntactical connections and the immediate context. As regards Philippians 4:15, the collocation with εἰς λόγον and the close proximity of other technical economic terms would at first glance suggest a financial connotation (rather than the plain sense gift). d) Literary and Documentary Evidence for the Collocation

ὁ λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως As already mentioned, the expression εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως (εἰς λόγον δ. καὶ λ. henceforth) is, to the best of our knowledge, unattested in documentary and literary sources. We are therefore without any verisimilar evidence to determine the possible significance of this phrase (which the term δοσοληψία, i.e., exchange/barter, does not really elucidate).175 As has long been noted by commentators, however, the collocation of δόσις and λῆµψις does occur in Sirach 41:19d and 42:7. While the lack of context makes it difficult to establish the exact significance of the phrase in the first instance,176 in the second case both the context and the syntax render the commercial connotation of δόσις καὶ λῆµψις fairly unambiguous.177 Here, ben Sira exhorts his reader to put down in writing (ἐν γραφῇ) every (πάντα) δόσις and λῆµψις, which, in context, strongly evokes a ledger in

174

Benveniste, Le vocabulaire, 1:65 (emphasis added). The term is never employed prior to A.D. II in literary sources, the earliest occurrence being found in the work of the astrologer Vettius Valens (App. ad antho. 1.1.89, 1.6.4). It does not appear in inscriptions and, as far as we were able to determine, is found in only two late papyri: BGU I 317 (l. 5; A.D. 580–581) and P.Lond. V 1727 (l. 45; A.D. 584), which is reproduced in FIRA2 3.67, pp. 202–203 (see esp. n. 1: ad hoc uocabulum). Cf. LSJ, s.v. δοσοληψία; Lampe, PGL, s.v. δοσοληψία. 176 The Vulgate translator(s) nonetheless rendered dati et accepti (cf. Phil 4:15), which is reminiscent of accounting terminology (see below). Note: the verse 41:19d corresponds to 41:24 in the Vulgate. 177 The Vulgate has: datum vero et acceptum omne describe. Cf. Smend’s translation: “Für das Hinterlegte gehört sich Zahl und Gewicht, und Ausgabe und Einnahme, alles sei schriftlich!” Rudolf Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1906), 74. Even Peterman accepts this commercial connotation. See Peterman, Gift, 207. For Muraoka, both instances refer to the act of giving/receiving. Cf. Muraoka, Lexicon, s.v. δόσις; s.v. λῆµψις. 175

94

Part One: Philological Survey

which receipts and expenditures, or perhaps imports and exports from one’s stock, would be recorded.178 A similar, well-known collocation is found in the Shepherd of Hermas (Mand. 5.2.2).179 In this case, however, context is of little help to shed light on what περὶ δόσεως ἢ λήψεως signifies. Aware as they may have been of the possible economic connotation of δόσις and λῆµψις, A. Roberts and J. Donaldson understood it to mean “some gift or debt.”180 But the translation debt for λῆµψις does not commend itself here (or anywhere else for that matter). Nor does C. Osiek’s odd paraphrase “about some social connection, reciprocity appropriate to one’s status,” seem to do justice to the Greek text.181 B. D. Ehrman’s rendition “because of … something received or given” rather makes more sense.182 An equally ambiguous collocation, which is usually overlooked, is found in the work of the astrologer Vettius Valens (A.D. II), who explains that male progenitures are more inclined to handle affairs (µεταχειρίζονται) involving discourse and reasoning (λόγος), what seems to be commercial exchange (δόσις and λῆµψις), and trusts and pledges (πίστεις): (ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρρενικῶν γενέσεων) … διότι τὰς πράξεις διὰ λόγου καὶ δόσεως καὶ λήψεως καὶ πίστεων µεταχειρίζονται (antho. 4.4.39).183 The commercial connotation of δόσις and λῆµψις here is suggested by the general context and by the next sentence, wherein women are said to take part in commercial activities as well through sales (πράσεων) and purchases (ἀγορασµῶν): συµβαίνει δὲ … καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας διὰ ἀγορασµῶν καὶ πράσεων (antho. 4.4.41). However, the economic nuance of the two substantives is felt more strongly in Valens’ description of Mercury’s oversight (κυριεύει) of all monetary transactions (χαλκοῦ καὶ νοµίσµατος παντός δόσεως λήψεως), even though, 178

The preceding clause, ὃ ἐὰν παραδιδῷς ἐν ἀριθµῷ καὶ σταθµῷ, evokes a commercial setting whereby some merchandise would be either counted or measured. Equally suggestive are references to business dealings with merchants in 42:5 (περὶ διαφόρου πράσεως ἐµπόρων), as well as allusions to the need to settle account fairly with business partners in 42:3 (περὶ λόγου κοινωνοῦ καὶ ὁδοιπόρων) and to use accurate scales in 42:4 (περὶ ἀκριβείας ζυγοῦ καὶ σταθµίων). Cf. Skehan and Di Lella, eds., Wisdom, 482; Minaud, La comptabilité, 24. 179 Cf. Lohmeyer, Philipper, 185; Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 177; Fee, Philippians, 443 (n. 19). 180 Shepherd of Hermas, Mand. 5.2.2 (Roberts and Donaldson). 181 Carolyn Osiek and Helmut Koester, Shepherd of Hermas: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 117. 182 Shepherd of Hermas, Mand. 5.2.2 (Ehrman, LCL). 183 An even more ambiguous collocation is found in one of Artemidorus Daldianus’ dream interpretations (Onir. 1.42): Χεῖρες εὔτονοι καὶ καλαὶ εὐπραξίαν σηµαίνουσι µάλιστα χειροτέχναις καὶ τοῖς διὰ δόσεως καὶ λήψεως ποριζοµένοις (i.e., strong and beautiful hands indicate prosperity, especially for craftsmen and for those who earn their living through ‘give and take’, i.e., commercial activities?).

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

95

in context, it is not entirely clear whether it relates to currency exchange or commercial activities (i.e., buying and selling): οὐσίας δὲ κυριεύει χαλκοῦ καὶ νοµίσµατος παντός δόσεως λήψεως (antho. 1.1.115). Significantly, throughout much of Valens’ work, the two terms are actually repeatedly associated with Mercury (Ἑρµῆς), the patron god of commerce and trade, which, when in aspect, signals renewed activity in δόσις and λῆψις, i.e., commercial activities, presumably (e.g., ἐὰν δὲ καὶ Ἑρµῆς ἐν λήψεσι καὶ δόσεσι γίνονται; antho. 4.4.10).184 Naturally, similar collocations bearing no particular financial significance can be found in other literary sources as well,185 which is somewhat expected since δόσις and λῆµψις derive from δίδωµι and λαµβάνω, two of the most common verbs in Greek. For example, in Aristotle’s discussion of liberality (ἐλευθεριότης), δόσις χρηµάτων καὶ λῆψις simply refers to the giving and receiving of money (Eth. nic. 2.7.4, 4.1.1, 4.1.24, 4.4.2; cf. 4.1.7– 8, 4.1.29, 4.1.38) – the economic connotation of δόσις and λῆµψις being here conveyed by the object in question, χρηµάτων, just as with some of 184

In antho. 4.11.148, Valens places δόσις, λῆµψις, as well as κοινωνίαι, under the positive influence of Mercury: ὅταν δὲ περὶ κοινωνίας ἢ δουλικῶν ἢ σωµατικῶν ἢ δόσεως ἢ λήψεως ἢ γραπτῶν, ἀπὸ Ἑρµοῦ. Cf. Frag. (Cumont) 8.1, p. 166, l. 11: ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ Ἑρµοῦ ἐλθὼν τελεῖ ἐργασίας καὶ κινήσεις ἐκ τόπου ἐπωφελεῖς, λήψεις καὶ δόσεις καὶ κοινωνίας ἐπικερδεῖς; Frag. (Cumont) 8.1, p. 169, l. 24: ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ Ἑρµοῦ ἀφικόµενος ἔσται ἀγαθὸς καὶ πρὸς πάντα τὰ τοῦ βίου ὠφέλιµος, πρὸς τὰς δόσεις καὶ λήψεις καὶ πράξεις καὶ κοινωνίας καὶ χειρισµούς. See F. Cumont, ed., Codices Parisini (vol. 8.1 of Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum; Brussels: Lamertin, 1929). Similarly, in antho. 4.17.25, he explains that the Sun transmitting to Mercury makes for effective δόσις and λῆµψις activity: Ἥλιος Ἑρµῇ ἀγαθός … περὶ τὰς δόσεις καὶ λήψεις ἀνυστικός. Venus transmitting to Mercury (and vice versa), or when in harmony with Mercury (cf. antho. 1.5.27), have the same positive outcome: Ἀφροδίτη Ἑρµῇ πρακτικὸν καὶ εὐεπήβολον τὸν χρόνον δηλοῖ περί τε τὰς δόσεις καὶ λήψεις καὶ ἐµπορίας (antho. 4.23.48); Ἑρµῆς Ἀφροδίτῃ ἀγαθὸν καὶ πρακτικὸν τὸν χρόνον δηλοῖ περί τε τὰς δόσεις καὶ τὰς λήψεις, ἀγορασµούς τε καὶ συναλλαγὰς ἐπαφροδίτους (antho. 4.24.45). On the other hand, Saturn distributing to Mercury is an ominous sign of disputes over money, reckonings (?), and δόσις and λῆµψις: Κρόνος Ἑρµῇ … ἀµφισβητήσεις ἀργυρικῶν τε ἢ ψηφικῶν, δόσεών τε καὶ λήψεων (antho. 4.20.41). Cf. antho. 1.20.226. 185 According to the TLG, there are only about twenty-five such collocations prior to A.D. II, which are primarily found in Aristotle, Aesop’s Vita (W, 53, l. 5; G, 53, l. 7), the lexicographer Ammonius (e.g., δωροδοκία ἥ τε δόσις τῶν δώρων καὶ ἡ λῆψις; K. Nickau, Ammonii qui dicitur liber de adfinium vocabulorum differentia [Leipzig: Teubner, 1996], s.v., δωροδοκία, #153), and some obscure astrological fragments. See for instance Pythagoras, Fragmenta astrologica [Zuretti], 136 (l. 27), 137 (l. 20), in K. O. Zuretti, Codices Hispanienses (vol. 11.2 of Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum; Brussels: Lamertin, 1934); and Antiochus, Fragmenta [e cod. Monac. 7], 108 (ll. 21, 24), in F. Boll, Codices Germanici (vol. 7 of Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum; Brussels: Lamertin, 1908). After A.D. II, another two hundred or so collocations are found, though mainly in philosophical commentaries on Aristotle or in patristic works.

96

Part One: Philological Survey

the examples cited above.186 Overall, it must be noted that, apart from patristic commentaries which cite Paul verbatim, λόγος is missing in each and every one of these instances.187 The Church Fathers themselves prove to be of little help in explicating the meaning of the phrase, since they usually prefer to extrapolate a theological interpretation.188 This is particularly evident in John Chrysostom’s homily, for whom the point of Philippians 4:15 is the exchange of material possessions for spiritual ones: Ὁρᾷς πῶς ἐκοινώνησαν, εἰς λόγον δόσεως τῶν σαρκικῶν, καὶ λήψεως τῶν πνευµατικῶν;189 Chrysostom must have nonetheless sensed the economic resonance of the passage, since he compared Paul’s dealings with the Philippians to a commercial transaction and ironised on the profitability of such trading: Ὥσπερ γὰρ οἱ πωλοῦντες καὶ ἀγοράζοντες κοινωνοῦσιν ἀλλήλοις, τὰ παρ’ ἀλλήλων ἀντιδιδόντες (τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι κοινωνία), οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἐνταῦθα. Οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν, οὐκ ἔστι ταύτης τῆς ἀγορασίας καὶ ἐµπορίας τι κερδαλεώτερον· γίνεται µὲν γὰρ ἐν τῇ γῇ, τελεῖται δὲ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ·190 For as those selling and purchasing exchange with one another by trading their goods – for this is a κοινωνία – so it is here also. For there is nothing more profitable than this commerce and trade, for it takes place on earth, but is completed in heaven.

186

See also Plato, Resp. 332a–b: ἡ ἀπόδοσις [τοῦ χρυσίου] καὶ ἡ λῆψις; Plutarch, Gen. Socr. 584C: εἰπέ µοι, πότερον ἡγῇ δόσιν µὲν εἶναί τινα χρηµάτων ὀρθὴν λῆψιν δὲ µηδεµίαν ἢ καὶ τοὺς διδόντας ἁµαρτάνειν πάντως καὶ τοὺς λαµβάνοντας; (i.e., tell me, do you consider giving some money and not receiving any to be proper, or do you think both givers and receivers to be by all means at fault?); Epictetus, Diatr. 2.9.12: καὶ τοὺς ἐναντίους πάλιν ἐπαύξει τὰ ἐναντία … τὸν φιλάργυρον αἱ ἀκατάλληλοι λήψεις καὶ δόσεις (i.e., and again, actions of the opposite [character] encourage men of contrary disposition … disproportionate receiving and giving [encourage] the avaricious). 187 The three terms do appear in close proximity in the works of the astrologer Vettius Valens on two occasions. However, in both cases they are found in apposition so that neither δόσις nor λῆψις is grammatically dependent on λόγος (nor is it explicitly stated what δόσις and λῆψις actually signify): (περὶ) τὰς διὰ λόγων καὶ δόσεων καὶ λήψεων πράξεις (antho. 2.20.4); (ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρρενικῶν γενέσεων) … διότι τὰς πράξεις διὰ λόγου καὶ δόσεως καὶ λήψεως καὶ πίστεων µεταχειρίζονται (antho. 4.4.39; see the discussion above). 188 Some merely quote Paul while others comment on the passage without necessarily drawing attention to the significance of the exchange between the apostle and the Philippians. See for instance Athanasius, [Ep. Castorem] 28.885, l. 52 (PG); Theodoret, Interpretatio in xiv epistulas sancti Pauli 82.588–589 (PG); Antiochus, Περὶ τοῦ ἐπισκέπτεσθαι 99.57–64 (PG); John of Damascus, [In epistulam ad Philippenses] 95.881– 882 (PG). 189 John Chrysostom, Hom. Phil. 15 (PG 62.291, ll. 2–4). 190 John Chrysostom, Hom. Phil. 15 (PG 62.291, ll. 4–8). This interpretation is later reproduced in a catena. See Catena in epistulam ad Philippenses (typus Parisinus) (e cod. Coislin. 204), 286–87, in J. A. Cramer, Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum (vol. 6; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1842; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967). Cf. Moule, Philippians, 88.

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

97

Chrysostom’s contemporaries understood the expression in a comparable way. Augustine, for instance, commented: quid est: in ratione dati et accepti, nisi quod alio loco aperte exposuit: si nos uobis spiritalia seminauimus, magnum est si nos uestra carnalia metamus?191 In a similar vein, Pelagius paraphrased: Quando profectus sum, scitis quia uos solos, a quibus sumptus acciperemus … Illi dati, ego accepti. Siue: Dantes carnalia et spiritalia accipientes.192 This interpretation would in fact remain prevalent throughout subsequent centuries, as is made evident upon consulting commentaries or homilies by Thomas Aquinas,193 J. Calvin,194 W. Musculus,195 Cornelius a Lapide,196 J. Daillé, 197 or U. B. Müller.198 These literary examples aside, it is once again the documentary material that offers the best insight. Admittedly, the collocation δόσις καὶ λῆµψις is only found in three papyri, two of which date from late antiquity (A.D. 191

I.e., what does it mean, on account of what is given and received (to an account of receipts and expenditures?), but what he has set forth plainly in another place, i.e., (that) “if we sowed spiritual things for you, is it not too much if we also reap your material things”? (cf. 1 Cor 9:11). Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 80.4, l. 3. 192 I.e., you know that, when I departed, you were the only ones from whom we took money … they gave, I received. In other words, they gave material things and received spiritual ones. Pelagius, Pelagius’s Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul. II. Text and Apparatus Criticus (ed. A. Souter; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922), 414–15. 193 Aquinas makes no reference to Chrysostom, Pelagius, or Augustine, but clearly abides by the same interpretation as he alludes to 1 Cor 9:11 and comments: in ratione dati spiritualis & accepti temporalis (i.e., in the matter of giving spiritual goods and receiving temporal ones). See Thomas Aquinas, Commentaria in omnes epistolas diui Pauli Apostoli (Paris: D. Moreau, 1636), 466. 194 Like Aquinas, Calvin makes no mention of the Fathers but evokes 1 Cor 9:11. See Calvin, Philippiens, 313–14. 195 Musculus directly quotes and then translates Chrysostom. See Wolfgang Musculus, In Diui Pauli Epistolas ad Philippenses, Colossenses, Thessalonicenses ambas, & primam ad Timotheum, commentarii (Basel: Heruagian, 1565), 118. 196 Cornelius explains Phil 4:15 as follows: in ratione, id est in compute & compensatione dati & accepti, compensando scilicet spiritalia a me accepta datis suis temporalibus donis, vel potius stipendiis. Ita Chrysost. & Theophyl. (i.e., in the accounting, that is, in the reckoning and balancing of what is given and what is received; the compensating of the spiritual goods received from me is evidently done through their giving temporal gifts, or rather, stipends. So Chrysostom and Theophylact of Ohrid). See Cornelius a Lapide, Pauli epistolas, 609. 197 Daillé follows the Fathers’ interpretation without making any direct reference to them. See Daillé, Exposition, 512–13. 198 Müller likewise does not mention the Fathers but obviously agrees with their interpretation when he remarks: “Sie startete eine besondere Solidaritätsaktion mit dem Ergebnis: Er gab ihnen Anteil an den geistlichen Gaben und empfing ihre irdischen Güter (1. Kor. 9, 11; Röm. 15, 27).” Ulrich B. Müller, Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1993), 205.

98

Part One: Philological Survey

VI).199 The earliest document consists of an obscure astrological fragment that provides no helpful context to allow us to make sense of the phrase δόσ(ε)ις καὶ λήµψ(ε)ις (P.Tebt. II 277, l. 16; A.D. III). 200 The later two instances are slightly less ambiguous, though hardly more helpful. In P.Cair. Masp. II 67158 (VI C.E.), a partnership contract between two carpenters, Aur. Psois and Aur. Joseph (Psois’ father-in-law), the two signatories agree for Psois to become Joseph’s heir and successor in λῆµψις and δόσις after his death: εἰ τῷ θεῷ δόξειεν εἶναι, [τόν τε κληρονό]µον καὶ διάδο\χ(ον)/ ὑµῶν λήµψεως καὶ δόσεως ὑπὲρ̣ ὑµῶν γενέσθαι, µετὰ τὴν ὑµῶν̣ ἀποβίωσιν (ll. 24–25). However, one is at a loss to make sense of δόσις and λῆµψις here, which V. Arangio-Ruiz left untranslated (i.e., si Deo placuerit, heredis et successoris uobis existendi cum vita defuncti eritis).201 Could it refer to whatever revenues or debts, credits and debits, have been incurred to the partnership (which could be transmitted to surviving socii; cf. Dig. 17.2. 65.9)?202 Similarly, in a testament from the same period (P.Cair.Masp. II 67151; VI C.E.), a clause stipulates that illegitimate children (νόθους) and freed slaves (ἀπελευθέρους) are to be alienated (ἀλλοτριουµένους) from all inheritance, from all πάσης λήµψεως καὶ δόσεως (ὑπὲρ ἐµοῦ, l. 208; cf. ll. 94–95: ἁπαξαπλῶ̣ς πάσης λή̣ψεω[ς] καὶ δόσεως ὑπὲρ ἐµοῦ).203 Here again, one is hard pressed to make sense of the intended meaning of πᾶσα δόσις καὶ λῆµψις. More suggestive, however, are the following instances in which εἰς λόγον collocates with δόσις.204 In P.Oxy. XLIX 3519 (ca. A.D. 260), a certain Severus is requested to pay to a potter his monthly allowance of wheat and wine: δὸς Κολλούθῳ κεραµεῖ εἰς λόγον δόσεως τοῦ ὄντ[ο]ς µηνὸς Παχὼν πυροῦ γενήµ(ατος) ε (ἔτους) (ἀρτάβας) ιη καὶ οἴνου γενήµ(ατος) ϛ̣ (ἔτους) κ̣ τήµ[ατ]ος Κολλούθου ληνοῦ β κερ(άµια) κδ.205 A comparable order to is199

The reading δ[όσ]εως καὶ ὑπολήµψεως (ll. 15–16) also appears in CPR VII 1 (7–4 B.C.). However, it is found at the fragmented end of the document, so that the meaning of the phrase is altogether unclear. 200 The previous line reads: [?] ἐν µὲν Κρόνου ὁρίοις ἐν̣ εργα[?]; while the following line has: [?]ς µισθωτὰς γυναικῶν, Κρόν[ου]. The papyrus is referenced in MM, s.v. δόσις. 201 FIRA2 3.158, p. 486. Preisigke listed this instance under the sense “Vereinnahmung,” the only gloss he gave for λῆµψις/λῆψις. Preisigke, WB 2:18. 202 Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, 16; Alan Watson, “The Evolution of Law: The Roman System of Contracts,” Law and History Review 2.1 (1984): 15; Watson, Spirit, 137. 203 See FIRA2 3.66, p. 193 (ll. 101–165). Cf. Preisigke, WB 2:18. 204 The collocation λόγος δοθέντων/δοθέντος, account of amount(s) paid, is also found, although it is not treated below (e.g., SB XX 14216; P.Cair.Masp. I 67056; P.Cair.Masp. II 67138; P.Got. 18; P.Harr. I 99; P.Kellis IV 96, ll. 174, 854). 205 I.e., give to Kollouthos the potter as payment for the month of Pachon 18 (artabas) of 5 th-year wheat and 24 keramia of 6 th year wine from Kollouthos’ plot from the 2nd winevat. Mees translates as follows: “Gib dem Töpfer Kollouthos als Zahlung … 18 Artaben vom Weizen … und 24 Keramien Wein.” Allard W. Mees, Organisationsformen

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

99

sue food supplies is found in a later document, P.Prag. I 72 (A.D. VII), in which a pork-butcher (χοιροµάγειγος) instructs a supervisor (προνοητής) named Mena to pay to a notarius a certain amount of barley: παρ(άσ)χ(ου) Μαριανῷ νοταρ(ίῳ) λό(γῳ) δώ̣σ̣(εως) (ὑπὲρ) µη(νὸς) Θὼθ κριθ(ῆς) (ἀρτάβας) ιε (ll. 2–3).206 Similarly, the following entry appears in an earlier estate account: Ἡρακλ(είῳ) α (= ἔτους) µ –̣ (= ἀρτάβαι) ἀµπελ(ῶνος) νεοφύτου ἃς ἐ̣ξεκρούσατο εἰς λόγ(ον) µισθώ(σεων) δόσεων νεοφ(ύτων) (ll. 11–13, P.Erl. 101, A.D. 269).207 Admittedly, these examples could be understood as meaning on account of or as payment (for service rendered or merchandise purchased).208 However, in the badly damaged account P.Cair.Masp. II 67141 (Frag. 5, V, A.D. VI?), the phrase λ̣ ό̣γ̣(ος) χ̣εδρίας209 δόσ(εως)210 τῆς καὶ ἀγορασθ(είσης) π(αρὰ) Ἀπολλῶτ could well make reference to an account of revenues from the sales of what seems to be vegetable oil at the local market (unless δόσις indicates food distributions here, as J. Maspero intimated).211 Still more illuminating are the following documents in which the collocated terms παραδόσις and παραλῆµψις seem to bear a connotation similar to that of δόσις and λῆµψις in Philippians 4:15.212 In these cases, the prepo-

römischer Töpfer-Manufakturen am Beispiel von Arezzo und Rheinzabern: Unter Berücksichtigung von Papyri, Inschriften und Rechtsquellen (Part 2; Mainz: Rudolf Habelt, 2002), 373. 206 I.e., give to the notarius Marianus as payment for the month of Thoth 15 artabas of barley. 207 I.e., to Herakleios, for the 1 st year, 40 artabas of newly planted wine which he transferred to the account of rent payments of the new plantations. Note: the ed. pr. originally translated λόγ(ον) µισθώ(σεων) δόσεων νεοφ(ύτων) by “die Pacht-und Geschenkrechnung der Neupflanzungen.” However, it is questionable that δόσις has the sense of Geschenk here (especially while used in collocation with µίσθωσις). See Schubart, P.Erl., p. 107. 208 Cf. Bülow-Jacobsen and Whitehorne, P.Oxy. XLIX, p. 256. 209 It is unclear to us what this term means. The ed. pr. suspected it might refer to some kind of vegetable (“des légumes?”; cf Maspero, P.Cair.Masp. II, p. 69). The LSJ entry for χεδρία provides neither gloss nor definition (it is not found in other lexica). The word appears neither in the TLG nor in the PHI, and is found in only two other papyri (P.Lond V 1833; P.Oxy. XVI 1924), which suggests that the term may have been misread. We propose κεδρία, i.e., oil extracted from the κεδρελάτη (Syrian cedar), as a better reading (cf. a similar correction by the editor of P.Oxy. XVI 1924). Cf. LSJ, s.v. χεδρία; s.v. κεδρία. 210 The ed. pr. expressed some doubt about this reading: “∆ος = δοσεως (?): compte de la distribution des légumes (?) achetés par Apollôs.” Maspero, P.Cair.Masp. II, p. 69. 211 Maspero, P.Cair.Masp. II, p. 69. 212 In an archival context, the two terms can also refer to the receipt and delivery of documents (e.g., P.Fam.Tebt. 15). See Fabienne Burkhalter, “Archives locales et archives centrales en Égypte Romaine,” Chiron 20 (1990): 193.

100

Part One: Philological Survey

sition παρά hardly adds any nuance to the lexeme.213 In the first instance, a certain Aurelius, a βουλευτής from Oxyrhynchos, reports to the local strategos (acting by order of the prefect of Egypt) concerning the λόγος παραλήµψε̣ω̣ς καὶ παραδόσεως κα̣ λ̣ ι̣[γίων (?)],214 i.e., the account of caligae (soldiers’ boots) over which he is responsible (τ[ῆς γενοµένης] ὑπ’ ἐµοῦ; ll. 5–6, PSI VIII 886, ca. A.D. 311/312).215 The papyrus being particularly fragmented, it is somewhat unclear whether παραδόσις and παραλῆµψις strictly refer to the receipt and payment of financial sums, or to the collection and distributions of stock supplies, or to both, as was possible with Graeco-Roman accounts.216 Interestingly, similar language is employed in four other documents. In P.Cair.Isid. 13 (A.D. 314), two tax-collectors (ἀπαιτῆται) provide a report as to the λόγος παραλήµψεως καὶ παραδόσεως ἀπὸ γενήµατος (ll. 5–6), which details the amount of produce (γένηµα), chaff here (ἄχυρον), they have collected (παραλῆµψις; cf. παραλαµβάνω, l. 30), and delivered (παραδόσις; cf. παραδίδωµι, l. 23), to the officers (ἐπιµεληταί) in charge of the supervision of taxes. Likewise, in P.Oxy. LX 4089 (A.D. 351), a report is given to the Oxyrhynchos strategos upon his enquiry (ἐπιζητοῦντίν σοι) about a λόγος παραλήµψεως καὶ παραδόσεως of wheat and barley. Similar remarks could be made about two other comparable documents written to the Oxyrhynchos strategos: P.Oxy. LXVII 4607 (concerning the ἀννώνη στρατιωτική; A.D. 362/363),217 and P.Oxy. X 1262 R (concerning a loan of corn seed; A.D. 197).218 While one could argue that in all five cases 213 In many compounds verbs, such as παραδίδωµι and παραλαµβάνω from which παραδόσις and παραλῆµψις derive, the force of the prepositional lexeme progressively disappeared in later Greek. See Moulton, Grammar, 111–13. Cf. Robertson, Grammar, 161, 558. 214 The reading is not entirely certain but further suggested by the occurrence of καλιγί[ων] in l. 3. In any case, no other word starting with καλ would make sense here. Cf. LSJ, s.v. καλίγιον; OLD, s.v. caliga, 258. 215 The language is quite formulaic here. The sentence indeed starts with the common expression ἐπιζητοῦντί σοι, which ought to be understood as meaning “in answer to your inquiry.” MM, s.v., ἐπιζητέω. Cf. SB VI 9169; P.Oxy. LX 4089. 216 The difference is not particularly significant. As Andreau indeed explains: “ce que les Grecs et les Romains relevaient dans leurs livres de comptes, ‘c’étaient les entrées et les sorties de stocks, stocks de monnaie (dans la caisse) ou stocks de produits (dans les greniers et entrepôts)’. ” See Jean Andreau, “Structure et fonction du livre de comptes de Kellis,” CRAI 148.1 (2004): 433. Cf. Minaud, La comptabilité, 72, 74. 217 In this instance, the account tabulates the collection of wine and meat and its redistribution to soldiers: [λό]γ̣ ̣ος τῆς γ̣ ενοµένη̣ ς ̣ ὑ̣[π’ ἐµο]ῦ̣ π̣ αραλήµψεως οἴνου καὶ κρέ̣[ως] κ̣ α̣ ὶ̣ π̣ [α]ρ̣[αδόσεω]ς ̣ [τ]ο̣ ῖς αὐτοῖς στρατιώτης (ll. 5–7). 218 In this last example, the term λόγος does not appear as it only makes mention of two local commissioners appointed (αἱρεθέντες) for the collection and delivery (ἐπὶ παραλήµψεως καὶ παραδόσεως) of sowing seed (σπερµάτων χωρούντων, ll. 6–8). This may have

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

101

παραδόσις and παραλῆµψις acquire no specific connotation other than their usual sense, that is, respectively, transfer and receipt,219 their collocation with λόγος and the nature of the documents themselves (i.e., a financial report), illustrate quite distinctly that they could also be employed to designate economic transactions, i.e., receipts and expenditures, be they in cash or kind, which would have then been transcribed into ledgers. Could Paul’s coining of the phrase εἰς λόγον δ. καὶ λ. have been influenced by such accounting parlance? e) The Significance of the Phrase εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως Although, as we have already noted, one has yet to discover in literary and documentary sources an expression that matches exactly that of Paul in Philippians 4:15, the few examples reviewed above should prove sufficient to elucidate the sense of the phrase εἰς λόγον δ. καὶ λ., or at least should help us identify more precisely its semantic source domain. The instances examined certainly provide enough supporting evidence to illustrate that (παρα)δόσις and (παρα)λῆµψις almost always acquire a financial connotation when found in collocation with λόγος. This confirms our initial intuition that the interpretive key to Paul’s unusual expression resides in the prepositional phrase εἰς λόγον, on which the genitives δόσεως and λήµψεως depend, as well as on the context formed by the close proximity of other economic terms.220 For these reasons, it seems therefore legitimate to conclude that Paul may have herein borrowed a colloquial expression pertaining to accounting terminology. Against this proposition one might argue that, in Greek papyri, a ledger is more commonly called a λόγος ληµµάτων καὶ ἀναλωµάτων.221 While Paul may have been familiar with such designation, he could have also been influenced by equivalent Latin appellations as he wrote from a Roman, or at least heavily Romanized,222 locality to a community based in a Roman

corresponded to a compulsory liturgy or magistracy. See Naphtali Lewis, The Compulsory Public Services of Roman Egypt (2nd ed.; Florence: Gonnelli, 1997), 39–40. 219 Cf. LSJ, s.v. παραδόσις, παράληψις. 220 This is precisely the point Peterman misses as he only focuses on δόσις καὶ λῆµψις and ignores the syntactical role of εἰς λόγον. See Peterman, Gift, 63–65. 221 E.g., P.Oxy. LVIII 3921; BGU I 21, VIII 22; P.Lond. III 965. Cf. Preisigke, WB 2:35; Éva Jakab, “Berenike vor Gericht: Apokeryxis, Gesellschaft und Buchführung in P. Oxy. XXII 2342,” Tyche 16 (2001): 80. 222 The place of Paul’s imprisonment remains a matter of conjecture that need not concern us here. Whether he was held in custody in Ephesus, Caesarea Maritima, or Rome, our point remains valid since all three were local (and translocal) centres of Roman administration and culture. For a brief, but helpful, review of scholarship on this question, see Frank S. Thielman, “Ephesus and the Literary Setting of Philippians,” in

102

Part One: Philological Survey

colony where Latin remained vibrant well into the third century C.E.223 That is, he may have had in mind either the domestic codex accepti et expensi, which every Roman property-owner tended during the Republican and early imperial eras (cf. Cicero, Rosc. com. 1.4, 3.8; Verr. 2.23.60),224 or the ratio data et accepta kept by bankers and other business people (Dig. 2.14.47.1; cf. Dig. 2.13.6.3).225 This suggestion is certainly not too farfetched considering that examples of such bilingual borrowings abound in ancient sources, papyri especially, regardless of the social level and/or linguistic proficiency of the author.226 After all, Paul was well acquainted with Roman culture. He had a distinctly Roman entourage,227 and may have also

New Testament Greek and Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Gerald F. Hawthorne (eds. A. M. Donaldson and T. B. Sailors; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 205–23. 223 As C. Brélaz and A. Rizakis have indeed observed, “la vigueur du latin … perdure comme langue usuelle et officielle de la colonie jusque tard dans le IIIe siècle, à l’inverse des colonies romaines d’Anatolie centrale, où le latin est supplanté plus rapidement par le grec.” Cédric Brélaz and Athanasios Rizakis, “Le fonctionnement des institutions et le déroulement des carrières dans la colonie de Philippes,” CCG 14 (2003): 161. 224 On the codex accepti et expensi, the works of Thilo and Minaud remain fundamental. See Thilo, Codex; Minaud, La comptabilité. See also L. Purser, “The Roman Account-Book,” Hermathena 6.13 (1886): 209–18; Leonhard, “Codex,”160–61; Berger, EDRL, s.v. codex accepti et expensi, 391; G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, “Greek and Roman Accounting,” in Studies in the History of Accounting (eds. A. C. Littleton and B. S. Yamey; London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1956), 42–43; Pierre Jouanique, “Le ‘codex accepti et expensi’ chez Cicéron: Étude d’histoire de la comptabilité,” RD 46 (1968): 1–31; Jean Andreau, “Banque grecque et banque romaine dans le théâtre de Plaute et de Térence,” MEFRA 80 (1968): 483–85; Andreau, La vie financière, 75, 477, 616. 225 Cf. Andreau, La vie financière, 557, 616; Andreau, Banques, 90. 226 See, for instance, the letter of an Egyptian soldier who wrote εἰς χώρτην for ad cohortem and βιάτικον for viaticum, in Deissmann, LAE, 179–83. Similarly, Trajan transliterated ἔρανος as eranus in his reply to Pliny (Pliny, Ep. 10.93). For a comprehensive collection of such loan-words as it applies to Roman institutions, see Hugh J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis (Toronto: A. M. Hakkert, 1974). For a recent study of bilingual inscriptions, see R. A. Kearsley, ed., Greeks and Romans in Imperial Asia: Mixed Language Inscriptions and Linguistic Evidence for Cultural Interaction until the End of AD III (Bonn: R. Habelt, 2001). See also Blass, Grammar, 4; Robertson, Grammar, 108–16; Horrocks, Greek, 126–32; J. N. Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 8–15. On the use of Latin in the Greek East more generally, see Bruno Rochette, Le latin dans le monde grec: Recherches sur la diffusion de la langue et des lettres latines dans les provinces hellénophones de l’Empire romain (Bruxelles: Latomus, 1997). 227 Perhaps as many as half of Paul’s companions were Roman, Judge estimated in his prosopographic study, which is ten times more than one would have expected. Edwin A. Judge, “The Roman Base of Paul’s Mission,” in The First Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament Essays (ed. J. R. Harrison; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 553–67; repr. from TynB 56.1 (2005).

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

103

spoken Latin (cf. Φιλιππήσιοι, Phil 4:15).228 Incidentally, this understanding also appears to have been that of the translator(s) of the Vulgate who rendered the Greek expression by the phrase in ratione dati et accepti,229 which in literary sources almost always refers to a ledger.230 This is further 228 This possibility was taken seriously by Ramsay, Souter (though his exposition is little convincing), and Bruce, who remarked that both Paul’s plan to travel to Spain and his reference to the province of Illyricum by its Latin appellation (Ἰλλυρία was its Greek name; cf. Rom 15:19) suggest a certain familiarity with the language. W. M. Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies in Early Christian History (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1906), 65; Alex Souter, “Did Paul Speak Latin?” Exp 1 (1911): 337–42; F. F. Bruce, Paul, Apostle of the Free Spirit (Exeter: Paternoster, 1977), 315–17. Cf. Hengel, Paul, 10. The presence of (at least) lexical Latinisms in the NT has also been noted by Buttmann, Thayer, Moulton, and Robertson (Thayer and Moulton were unconvinced about syntactical Latinisms, however). See Alexander Buttmann, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek (Andover: W. F. Draper, 1891), xii, 409; J. H. Thayer, “Language of the New Testament,” in A Dictionary of the Bible (vol. 3; ed. J. Hastings; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), 40; Moulton, Grammar, 20–21; Robertson, Grammar, 108–11. Cf. Stanley E. Porter, “Did Paul Speak Latin?” in Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman (ed. S. E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 289–308. 229 A few textual variants exist amongst Vetus Latina manuscripts or bilingual codices such as Claromontanus, which read in verbo dati et accepti (in oratione/tribulatione is also found). This makes little sense of the original Greek text, however. See Hermann J. Frede, Epistulae ad Philippenses et ad Colossenses (vol. 24/2 of Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel; ed. E. Beuron; Freiburg: Herder, 1971), 251. Cf. Konstantin Tischendorf, Codex Claromontanus sive epistulae Pauli omnes Graece et Latine (...) (Lipsia: Brockhaus, 1852), 371. 230 Plautus, Pseud. 626: qui res rationes que eri Ballionis curo, argentum accepto [expenso] et quoi debet dato; cf. Truc. 748: ratio accepti. Cicero, Rosc. com. 1.2, 4: tabulas accepti et expensi/in codice accepti et expensi; idem 2.5: in codicem accepti et expensi; idem 3.8–9: in codicem accepti et expensi; Verr. 2.2.76: tabulas accepti et expensi; De or. 47.158: in accepti tabulis; Cicero, Font. 2.3: ratio litterarum confectioque tabularum habet hanc vim ut ex acceptis et datis quidquid fingatur; Valerius Maximus 3.7.1e: librum, quo acceptae et expensae summae. Seneca, Vit. beat. 23.5: ut qui meminerit tam expensorum quam acceptorum rationem esse reddendam; Ben. 4.32.4: apud me istae expensorum acceptorum que rationes dispunguntur. Velius Longus, De ortho., p. 60, l. 13: quam ab antiquis usitatam ait maxime in rationibus et in accepti tabulis. Ausonius, Grat. 5: accepti et expensi tabulae. C. Iulius Victor, Ars rhetorica, 3.1 De pragmatica (l. 10): ratio acceptorum, expensorum et solutorum. Cf. also Plautus, Truc. 70: quos quidem quam ad rem dicam in argentariis referre habere, nisi pro tabulis, nescio, ubi aera perscribantur usuraria: accepta dico, expensa ne qui censeat; Truc. 748: ratio accepti. Catullus 28: ecquidnam in tabulis patet lucelli expensum, ut mihi, qui meum secutus praetorem refero datum lucello (acceptum is probably replaced by lucellum here to meet the metre requirements of the verse; cf. Minaud, La comptabilité, 119); Dig. 2.14.47.1: cum quo rationem implicitam habebat propter accepta et data. Note how writers, Cicero especially, can use both tabula and codex interchangeably, or simply tabula (e.g., Cael. 6.17). Cf. Thilo, Codex, 81; Ste. Croix, “Accounting,” 42–43; J. L. Sharpe III, “Dakhlet Tablets,” in Les tablettes (ed. Lalou), 130. For a comprehensive compila-

104

Part One: Philological Survey

suggestive of the likely semantic source domain of the expression. The question that will therefore need to be addressed at a later stage in our exegesis is whether, in the context of Philippians 4:10–20, it is best taken figuratively as an expression evoking gift-exchange within the context of friendship or social reciprocity, or whether it should be understood, in a more literal sense, as referring to a financial account that Paul and the Philippians kept in common.

3.3 Verbs 3.3.1 ἀπέχω The verb ἀπέχω, which is also found in the Gospels,231 has long been identified as a commercial terminus technicus meaning primarily “to receive in full what is due.”232 Deissmann initially reported that “countless instances” of the term could be found in papyri, although he himself adduced only five such examples.233 He noted in particular that this was “a technical extion and informative discussion of the Ciceronian evidence, see Minaud, La comptabilité, 51–68. Cf. Thilo, Codex, 162–70. 231 Matt 6:2, 5, 16: ἀπέχουσιν τὸν µισθὸν αὐτῶν; Luke 6:24: Πλὴν οὐαὶ ὑµῖν τοῖς πλουσίοις, ὅτι ἀπέχετε τὴν παράκλησιν ὑµῶν. 232 This is the definition proposed in BDAG, s.v. ἀπέχω (it mainly reproduces Deissmann’s documentary references). Cf. Preisigke, WB 1:211–14; Nägeli, Wortschatz, 54– 55; L&N, s.v. ἀπέχω 57.137; Muraoka, Lexicon, s.v. ἀπέχω; Spicq, “ἀπέχω,” TLNT 1:162–65. LSJ supplies a similar definition but subtracts in full in its supplement and shifts to a present perfect tense, i.e., to have received (p. 320). LSJ, s.v. ἀπέχω. BDAG gives four other non-technical definitions (e.g., to suffice, to be at some distance), only one of which is found in Pauline literature (i.e., to avoid contact with or use of something, using a middle form with a genitivus rei; cf. 1 Thess 4:3, 5:22). See also Otto von Gradenwitz, Einführung in die Papyruskunde: Erklärung ausgewählter Urkunden (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1900), 119; Heinrich Erman,“Die ‘Habe’-Quittung bei den Griechen,” APF 1 (1901): 77; Albert Thumb, “Prinzipienfragen der Koine-Forschung,” NJahrb 17 (1906): 255; Straub, Bildersprache, 27; Edwin Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit, mit Einschluss der gleichzeitigen Ostraka und der in Agypten verfassten Inschriften (vol. 1; 9th ed.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1923), 487; Ulrich Wilcken, Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien (2 vols.; 9th ed.; Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient, 1899; repr., Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1970), 1:61, 86; HansAlbert Rupprecht, Studien zur Quittung im Recht der graeco-ägyptischen Papyri (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1971), 7, 63, 67. 233 Deissmann, LAE, 110–11. Cf. idem, BS, 229. Three of these were ostracon receipts for 1) a rent payment (Ptolemaic period), 2) a collection for Isis (A.D. 63), and 3) the alien tax in Thebes (A.D. 32–33). The other two were papyri recording a receipt for the sale of a donkey (BGU II 584) and a lease (BGU II 612). MM, s.v. ἀπέχω, further adduces four papyri: P.Paris 52 (163–2 B.C.), P.Tebt. I 109 (93 B.C.), BGU III 975 (A.D.

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

105

pression regularly employed in drawing up a receipt.”234 He also observed its occurrence in three inscriptions, one of which records a slave sale at Delphi – which, Deissmann failed to mention, could be of some relevance to Philemon 15.235 Whilst the sense to receive/to have (in full) is found only occasionally in non-Jewish and non-Christian literary sources,236 twice in the LXX, 237 once in the apostolic fathers,238 once in the Pseudepigraphical literature,239 once in Josephus,240 but never in Philo,241 it is extremely well attested in papyri and inscriptions, especially in receipts, as Deissmann had justly noted.242 The DDbDP, APIS, and HGV databases alone deliver almost 2,000 results, thereby confirming Moulton’s remark that examples could “be multiplied almost indefinitely.”243 There is little point in reviewing all of the evidence. Rather, we shall limit ourselves to a representative sample

45), PSI 39 (A.D. 148). Spicq provides an abundant supply of examples. See Spicq, “ἀπέχω,” TLNT 1:162–65. 234 Deissmann, LAE, 110. 235 SIG2 845 (200–199 B.C.); BCH 22 (1898): 58 (A.D. I); IBM 2.158 (IV B.C.). See Deissmann, LAE, 111, 323. 236 E.g., Callimachus, Epigr. 55: τὸ χρέος ὡς ἀπέχεις. Cf. Plutarch, Sol. 22.4: τόν τε µισθὸν ἀπέχει; idem, Them. 17.2: τόν καρπὸν ἀπέχει τῶν ὑπὲρ τῆς Ἑλλάδος αὐτῷ πονηθέντων. In Sol. 22.4, Plutarch uses the verb in the same way as in Matt 6:2 (i.e., to receive one’s reward), while in Them. 17.2 he alludes to Themistocles’ reaping the fruit of his (political) labours on behalf of the Greeks. These are the only three literary examples of this sense referenced in LSJ and BDAG. We were unable to discover any additional examples. Out of the 2,500 or so instances of the verb prior to A.D. II that are recorded in the TLG, the senses to be distant (e.g., Thucydides, Hist. 4.102.4; Herodotus, Hist. 9.51; Diodorus Siculus 15.32.3), or to keep away from/to abstain from (e.g., Isocrates, Or. 5.94; Xenophon, Ages. 5.1), are indeed by far the most common. 237 Gen 43:23: ἀπέχω τὸ ἀργύριον; Num 32:19: ἀπέχοµεν τοὺς κλήρους ἡµῶν. However, it is mostly used in the sense of to be distant (e.g., Gen 44:4; Deut 12:21), to keep away from (e.g., Deut 18:22; Job 1:1, 8), or to withhold (e.g., Prov 23:13; Joel 1:13). 238 Herm., Vis.3, 13:4: ἀπέχεις ὁλοτελῆ τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν. It is otherwise mostly used in the sense of to keep away from (e.g., Did. 1:4; Pol. Phil 6:1, 3). 239 Aristeas concludes his treatise as follows: ἀπέχεις τὴν διήγησιν (Let. Aris.1:322). Here again, it is mostly found in the senses of to keep away from or to abstain from (e.g., Sib. Or. 2:98; T. Ab. 4:6). 240 On his death’s bed, Pheroras acknowledges: ἀπέχω τῆς ἀσεβείας τὸ ἐπιτίµιον (B.J. 1:596). Much more common are the senses to be distant (e.g., A.J. 8:303, 9:7), and to keep away from or to abstain from (e.g., A.J. 6:323). 241 The senses to keep away from or to abstain from are primarily encountered (e.g., Wis. 2:16; Sir. 9:13; Opif. 170; Leg. 1:122). 242 It can be found in the present, aorist, or perfect indicative forms (i.e., ἀπέχω/ ἀπέχοµεν, ἀπέσχον, ἀπέσχηκα), or in the infinitive (i.e., ἀπέχειν, ἀπεσχηκέναι) when dependent on a main verb such as ὁµολογέω. 243 MM, s.v. ἀπέχω.

106

Part One: Philological Survey

from A.D. I. This should be more than sufficient to illustrate the common formulaic usage of the term in a variety of documentary contexts.244 a) Papyrological Evidence By a large margin, the word ἀπέχω appears in Theban tax-receipts from A.D. I, which, U. Wilcken suggested, were written by bank officials to tax collectors (τελῶναι or δηµοσιῶναι), rather than to the taxpayers themselves.245 Such receipts were generally written as follows: ἀπέχο(µεν)/ ἀπέχω παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος τὸ τέλ(ος).246 Understandably, receipts usually included a clear indication of the amount being paid, as in O.Bodl. II 1058 (l. 2): ἀπέχω παρὰ σͅ οῦ  (= δραχµὰς) δ = (= ὀβολοὺς) τὸ τέλος.247 At other times, as the following examples will illustrate, receipts also described the type of tax in question, whether it was a bath tax (i), a census tax (ii), a customs tax (iii), a tax on vegetable plots (iv), a tax on dikes (v), a temple tax (vi), a tax on slaves (?) (vii), or a tax on prostitutes (viii): (i) ἀπέχο(µεν) τὸ βαλ(ανευτικόν).248 (ii) ἀπ̣έχο̣(µεν) π̣α̣ρὰ σοῦ λαογραφίαν.249 (iii) ἀπέχ(οµεν) τέλ(ος) ἐξαγ̣(όντων) ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ πεντ̣ή κ̣(οντα) (γίνονται) ν.250 (iv) ἀπέχω(µεν) τὸ τέλ(ος) τῆς λαχανίας (l. 4).251

244

Included below are only documents that can be precisely dated based on internal evidence. 245 This would explain the mention of two different taxpayers on certain ostraca, and the existence of ostraca archives. Wilcken, Ostraka, 69. Unfortunately, we will never be able to verify Wilcken’s theory since he did not keep records of the archeological context in which these ostraca were found, and since these documents have now disappeared from the stores of Egyptian museums. See Hélène Cuvigny, “The Finds of the Papyri: The Archaeology of Papyrology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (ed. R. S. Bagnall; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 43–44. 246 E.g., O.Bodl. II 1038, 1052–1055; O.Wilck. 1049, 1394; SB XVIII 13279; O.Berl. 25, 27. Such receipts literally amount in the hundreds. To date, the most comprehensive study of these artefacts remains Wilcken, Ostraka, 58–129. Cf. Sherman L. Wallace, Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (New York: Greenwood, 1969), 300–304; Raymond Bogaert, “Les reçus d’impôts thébains en argent des IIe et IIIe siecles,” in Trapezitica, 134; repr. from ChrEg 55 (1980). 247 Cf. O.Bodl. II 1037, 1056, 1057. 248 O.Bodl. II 671. Cf. O.Bodl. II 656–658, 670–683. See also Wilcken, Ostraka, 165– 70; Wallace, Taxation, 155–59. 249 O.Bodl. II 497. Cf. O.Cair.Cat. 9521. See also Wilcken, O.Wilck., pp. 230–49; Wallace, Taxation, 116–34; Bowman and Rathbone, “Cities,” 112–14. 250 O.Ont.Mus. I 10. Cf. O.Wilck. 43. See also Wilcken, Ostraka, 276–79; Wallace, Taxation, 255–76 (esp. 271).

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

107

(v) ἀ̣πέχω παρὰ σο̣ῦ̣ χωµατικῶ̣ν.252 (vi) ἀπέχω παρὰ σοῦ  (= δραχµὰς) δ Isis priest) (ll. 2–3).253

(= ὀβολοὺς) ὑπερὶ τῶν δηµωσίων τὴ φεννησίαν (i.e.,

(vii) ἀπέχω παρὰ σοῦ [ὑπ(ὲρ)] σωµατικῶν.254 (viii) ἀπέχο παρὰ σοῦ οἱπὲρ (= ὑπὲρ) τέλος αἱτερικὼν (= ἑταιρικοῦ) Μεµνονίον.255

What is particularly important to observe here is the almost formulaic usage of ἀπέχω, which, in receipts, is mostly found in the first-person (singular or plural) present indicative. It was once suggested that “the perfectivizing preposition” ἀπό effectively made ἀπέχω “ein Aoristpräsens,” and thus gave it the sense of ἔσχον or ἔλαβον.256 C. Préaux has however shown this understanding to be quite incorrect: “pendant toute l’époque ptolémaïque, les quittances de ce type ont-elles régulièrement le présent ἔχω ‘j’ai’ ou ἀπέχω ‘j’ai mon dû’, sans qu’on aperçoive pratiquement de différence entre les deux termes” (cf. O.Wilck. 1081–1090).257 She contended instead that the use of the present tense actually places the emphasis on the fact that the recipient is well and truly in possession of whatever was due. 258 Significantly, this use of ἀπέχω is attested all throughout A.D. I, though from A.D. II onwards it was progressively substituted by ἔσχον in receipts, as scribal habits evolved and πράκτορες ἀργυρικῶν replaced τελῶναι in the collection of taxes.259 Beyond tax-receipts, ἀπέχω could also be used in a wide variety of commercial and non-commercial documents to acknowledge the full receipt of a payment or the delivery of some merchandise that was due, as the following documents will illustrate: 251 O.Wilck. 787. Cf. P.Cair.Zen. 329; P.Oxy. XVI 1913. See also Wilcken, Ostraka, 250–51; Wallace, Taxation, 52–53, 376 (n. 21). 252 O.Bodl. II 558. By the Roman period, the χωµατικόν had become a capitation tax, i.e., a tax imposed in equal proportion over the entire tax-paying population. See Wallace, Taxation, 60–61, 140–43. Cf. Wilcken, Ostraka, 333–42. 253 O.Wilck. 416. Cf. O.Wilck. 412–418. Cf. Wallace, Taxation, 245. 254 O.Wilck. 1052. Cf. Wilcken, Ostraka, 304; Wallace, Taxation, 284. 255 SB XXII 15382. Cf. LSJ, s.v. ἑταίρα; Wallace, Taxation, 209–11; Knapp, Romans, 241–42. 256 MM, s.v. ἀπέχω; Thumb, “Prinzipienfragen,” 255. Cf. Claire Préaux, “Aspect verbal et préverbe: l’usage d’ἈΠΈΧΩ dans les ostraca,” ChrEg 29 (1954): 139–41. 257 Préaux, “ἈΠΈΧΩ,” 144. Ibid., 142. Cf. O.Caire 9524, 9505, 9501, 9644, published in idem, “Ostraca ptolémaïques du Musée du Caire,” ChrEg 28 (1953): 322–34. Before Préaux, Mayser had already rejected the aoristic nuance of ἀπέχω, while Erman had denied its equivalence to ἔλαβον. See Mayser, Grammatik, 2.1:132–33. Cf. Erman,“‘Habe’-Quittung,” 80–81. 258 Préaux, “ἈΠΈΧΩ,” 143–45. 259 Hence, for Préaux, the evolution of receipt formulae in the Theban ostraca is not to be ascribed to a particular linguistic development. See Préaux, “ἈΠΈΧΩ,” 145.

108

Part One: Philological Survey

(i) land lease: ἀπέχουσιν οἱ ὁµολογοῦντες ἐ̣κ̣ προδώµ[α]τος τὴν τῶν ἐκφορίων τιµήν.260 (ii) receipts for goods: a) ἀπέχω παρὰ σοῦ γόµ(ον) ἀχύρου (l. 3).261 b) ἀπέχω παρὰ σοῦ̣ ἐπὶ Μῦς Ὅρµου̣ πυροῦ ἀρτάβας τρῖς / (= γίνονται) γ̣ (l. 2).262 c) ἀπέχ(ω) τὰ τοῦ ἀργυρίο(υ) (τάλαντα) τρία … ἀπέχωι καὶ δέρµα̣ τ(α) αἴγεια ὀκτὼι καὶ βοικὸ̣ν ἕνα̣ (ll. 8–11).263 (iii) receipt for rent: ὁµολογῶι ἀπέχειν [πα]ρὰ σοῦ τὸν̣ φόρον καὶ τὸν ἐξ ἐκφορίο(υ) ὧν συνεγεώργεις µοι κλήρων µου (ll. 2–4).264 (iv) nursing contract: (ὁµολογῶ) ἀπέχειν παρ’ αὐτῆς τὰ τροφεῖα καὶ τὰ ἔλαια καὶ τὸν ἱµατισµὸν καὶ τἆλλα ὅσα καθήκει δίδοσθαι τροφῷ τοῦ τῆς γαλακτοτροφίας (ll. 12–14).265 (v) private letter (acknowledging the receipt of an allowance): (ἵ̣να) ἀπέχω τὸ πέµπτον ὀψώνι\ο/(ν) ἕως τοῦ Χοίαχ τοῦ ιγ (ἔτους) ∆οµ̣ ιτιανοῦ τ̣ οῦ κυρίο̣ υ (ll. 11–14).266 (vi) receipt for a wage: (ὁµολογεῖ) ἀπεσχηκέναι παρ’ αὐτοῦ τὴν τιµὴν καὶ τοὺς ̣ µισθοὺς ἐκ πλήρους (ll. 7–8).267

The term is also particularly frequent in sale contracts,268 loan receipts,269 deposit receipts,270 bank διεκβολαί (payment receipts), or ἀντίγραφοι (duplicates).271 In sale contracts, it usually begins the following, well-attested formula (which varies more or less depending on the contract): (συν) ἀπέχω/οµεν παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος τὴν συνκεχωρηµένην τιµὴν πᾶσαν ἐκ πλήρους παραχρῆµα διὰ χειρὸς ἐξ οἴκου καὶ (συν)βεβαιώσω/οµεν τὴν πρᾶσιν πάσῃ βεβαιώσει κτλ.272 260 BGU II 526. Cf. P. Fouad I 40; BGU XV 2552; P.Oslo II 32; SB VIII 9830; BGU II 526. The expression ἀπέχω τὴν τιµήν is extremely common in a variety of commercial transactions such as sale contracts for plots of land, buildings, human or animal property (e.g., CPR XV 47; P.Gen. I 23; P.Louvre I 9; P.Mich. V 253, 269, 274, 276), as well as loans (e.g., P.Ryl. II 160 C; SB XX 14394; BGU IV 1065; P.Mich. XV 707). 261 O.Bodl. II 1641. Cf. O.Bodl. II 1642, 1643, 1645; O.Berl. 67; O.Wilck. 1258; O.Cair.Cat. 9510. 262 O.Petr. 279. Cf. O.Bodl. II 1970. 263 O.Petr. 290. Cf. O.Petr. 235. 264 O.Leid. 316. 265 BGU I 297. Cf. P.Tebt. II 399; P.Rein. II 103, 104. 266 P.Wisc. II 68 (cf. l. 16). Cf. BGU XVI 2606, or the cheirographa P.Aberd. 63 and 65; P.Lund. VI 7; O.Claud. III 417 (A.D. 136). 267 P.Mich. V 337. 268 E.g., P.Gen. I 22, 23; BGU XIII 2335; P.Fam.Tebt. 3, 9. 269 E.g., P.Cair.Zen. II 59265; BGU XIII 2337. 270 E.g., P.Mich. IX 571. 271 E.g., BGU XV 2486; SB XX 14394. 272 I.e., I/we have (received) from so and so the entire agreed price, in full, at once, from hand to hand, out of the house, and I/we shall guarantee the sale with every guarantee etc. See for instance P.Lond. II 154; P.Mich. V 253, 269, 274, 276; CPR XV 47;

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

109

As Deissmann had observed,273 the use of ἀπέχω in receipts and legal contracts must have been almost universal since it is ubiquitously found in papyrological sources from Egypt and Judea.274 Similarly, it occurs in one of the bilingual Sulpicii tablets, a chirographum,275 recording the receipt of a maritime loan of 1,000 denarii (4,000 HS) by a certain Menelaus, a navicularius from Caria: ἒγραψα ἀπέχιν (= ἀπέχειν) µαι (= µοι) παρὰ Πρίµου Ποπλίου ’Αττίου Σεβήρου δούλου{λου} δηνάρια χίλια ἐκ ναυλωτικῆς ἐκσθραγισµένης (T.Sulpicii 13; A.D. 38).276 So common was this sense of ἀπέχω that two substantives were derived from the verb to designate a receipt, ἀποχή and µισθαποχή,277 the former being even transliterated in Latin P.Louvre I 9; P.Ryl. II 160 A; PSI VIII 907, 909; SB XVIII 13579. Also commonly found is the formulaic expression ὁµολογῶ/οῦµεν ἀπέχειν (e.g., P.Lond. II 154; P.Mich. V 253, 269, 274, 276; CPR XV 47; P.Louvre I 9; P.Ryl. II 160 A; PSI VIII 907, 909; SB XVIII 13579). 273 Deissmann, LAE, 111. 274 E.g., P.Yadin I 17 (A.D. 128); P.Yadin I 27 (A.D. 132). In both documents ἀπέχω is used in collocation with εἰς λόγον (τινος). See also l. 12 (ἀπέσχον καὶ ἠρίθµηµε) of the Judean cheirographon SB X 10304 (A.D. II). Cf. ed. pr. Pierre Benoit, “Une reconnaissance de dette du IIe siècle en Palestine,” in Studi in Onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto Paribeni (Milan: Ceschina, 1957), 257–72. 275 Chirographa were Roman legal documents (often in the form of a diptych or triptych) written in the subjective style, i.e., scripsi me debere/ habere/ accepisse/ repromisisse. It appears to have directly evolved from the Greek χειρόγραφον (retaining the subjective style but abandoning its epistolary format), though this is debated. See Mario Amelotti, “Notariat und Urkundenwesen zur Zeit des Prinzipats,” ANRW 13:388; Hans J. Wolff, Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Ägyptens in der Zeit der Ptolemäer und des Prinzipats (vol. 2; Munich: C. H. Beck, 1978), 106–14 (esp. 107, n. 4); Meyer, Legitimacy, 148–58; Watson, Spirit, 114; Minaud, La comptabilité, 133. On the Greek χειρόγραφον, see for instance Ludwig Mitteis, Römisches Privatrecht bis auf die Zeit Diokletians (vol 1; Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1908), 293; Paul M. Meyer, Juristische Papyri: Erklärung von Urkunden zur Einführung in die juristische Papyruskunde (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1920), 108–12; Uri Yiftach-Firanko, “The Cheirographon and the Privatization of Scribal Activity in Early Roman Oxyrhynchos,” in Symposion 2007: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Durham, 2.–6. September 2007) (eds. E. Harris and G. Thür; Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008), 325–40; Stefan Waszynski, Die Bodenpacht: Agrargeschichtliche Papyrus Studien (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1905), 26–29. 276 The phrase ἒγραψα ἀπέχιν µαι corresponds to the Latin formula scripsi me accepisse. Cf. Jean Macqueron, Contractus scripturae: Contrats et quittances dans la pratique romaine (Camerino: Facoltà di Giurisprudenza dell’Università di Camerino, 1982), 173–75 (= T.Pomp. 13); Lucio Bove, Documenti di operazioni finanziarie dall’ archivio dei Sulpici: Tabulae Pompeianae di Murécine (Naples: Liguori, 1984), 147–48. 277 E.g., BGU I 260; P.Tebt.11; BGU IV 1116; O.Bodl. II 1103; P.Turner 45, P.Kellis I 62. Cf. LSJ, s.v. ἀποχή; Deissmann, BS, 229; MM, s.v. ἀπέχω; 364; Rupprecht, Studien, 58–60. On the term µισθαποχή, see Waszynski, Bodenpacht, 10; Johannes Herrmann, Studien zur Bodenpacht im Recht der graeco-aegyptischen Papyri (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1958), 13–14; Hennig, Bodenpacht, 41.

110

Part One: Philological Survey

as apocha (e.g., O.BuNjem 86; SB XIV 11624; Dig. 12.6.67.2; 46.4.19; 47.2.27).278 In sum, a sample of approximately 550 papyri dating from A.D. I clearly demonstrates that the term pertained to the “vocabulaire de la quittance,”279 for it was employed in a wide range of legal, commercial, and financial documents to signify, primarily, the formal receipt of money or merchandise which was owed by virtue of some contractual or fiscal obligation. Never does it seem to have been used in a figurative sense or merely to acknowledge gifts. While the aorist (ἀπέσχον) and perfect (ἀπέσχηκα) forms are found occasionally, 280 it is the present tense ἀπέχω that is employed in formulaic fashion in an overwhelming majority of cases, which confirms a technical usage in such documents. Significantly, this sense (and usage) does not seem to have drastically evolved overtime, as the earliest (III B.C.) and latest (A.D. VII) examples indicate.281 The other senses of the term to be distant from (e.g., SB XXVI 16531; P.Lille I 2), or to keep away from/to abstain from (e.g., P.Col. VIII 209; P.Mil.Vogl. III 184; P.Med. I 43), can of course also be found, though much more rarely. b) Epigraphic Evidence Although all the other ordinary senses of ἀπέχω are found in inscriptions from Greece, Asia Minor, and beyond,282 it is the meaning I receive in full (what is due) that is once again the most commonly observed, which further suggests a predominant usage in the lingua franca of the time. Out of the three hundred or so instances of ἀπέχω found in the PHI database and the SEG corpus, more than two hundred bear this connotation.283 For example, in IG VII 3171 (III B.C.), which records in the Boeotian dialect two official receipts of a financial loan by a certain Eubolos to the city of Orchomenos, Eubolos is said to have received the whole loan back so that the city no longer owes him anything: οὔτ’ ὀφείλετη αὐτῦ ἔτι οὐθὲν παρ τὰν

278 Cf. OLD, s.v. apocha; Berger, EDRL, s.v. apocha; Jean Andreau, “Présence des cités et des hiérarchies civiques dans les tablettes de Pompéi,” in Tâches publiques et entreprise privée dans le monde romain: Actes du Diplôme d’études Avancées, Universités de Neuchâtel et de Lausanne, 2000–2002 (ed. J.-J. Aubert; Genève: Droz, 2003), 239. 279 Cuvigny, O.Claud. III, p. 83. 280 E.g., P.Sakaon 61; P.Louvre I 9; P.Heid. IV 327; P.Lond. II 143. 281 E.g., P.Petr. III 132; UPZ II 158 A; P.Cair.Zen. III 59425; P.Mich. XIII 662. 282 For the sense to be distant (from), see for instance: IG II² 1668; FD 3.4.293; FD 3.4.42. To abstain/keep away from: SEG 29.127; SEG 1.329; IAphrodArchive 15; SEG 29.1205, etc. 283 For about 15% of these three hundred inscriptions, the word ἀπέχω has been suggested as a possible, though uncertain, reading.

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

111

πόλιν, ἀλλ’ ἀπέχι πάντα περὶ παντὸς (ll. 34–35).284 Similar usages are found in the badly damaged decree IArykanda 2 (l. 6: ἀργυρίου < ςασ’ καὶ ἀπέχει; II–I B.C.),285 which seems to regulate the sale of a priesthood,286 or in the fragmentary account IDelphes 2.102 (col. II A, ll. 14–15: [Τ]ούτων ἀπέχεται µναῖ ἐννέα στατῆρε[ς] τριάκοντα κτλ.; ca. 324–323 B.C.).287 A slightly more interesting usage of ἀπέχω, which resembles the papyrological examples seen above, can also be observed on a stone from Iconium, which appears to preserve a copy of a receipt for the payment of the decuma: ἄκτωρ ὑπέγραψα Ποµπώνιος Κλαυδιανὸς πράκτωρ ἀπέχω, ἐπιµετρήσαντος Κοίντου Κουρ[τί]ου Νίγερος.288 According to W. M. Ramsay, this peculiar inscription could be explained by the need to record the last tributum payment made when Claudiconium became Colonia Ael. Hadr. Iconiensium in A.D. 137.289 Yet, by far the most frequent occurrence of ἀπέχω is in sacral manumission records from Delphi, the bulk of which represent about 65% (i.e., 248 inscriptions) of the evidence examined, which range from II B.C. (e.g., GDI II 2116; IG IX 1² 3.721) to A.D. II (e.g., IG IX 1 192, 194).290 These inscriptions usually follow the same formulaic pattern, though some variations are noticeable.291 After the master is 284 Cf. Migeotte, L’emprunt, 48–53, #12; idem, “Souscriptions publiques en Béotie,” in Colloques internationaux du CNRS “La Béotie antique” (Paris: Éditions du CNRS, 1985), 313–14. 285 I.e., the 216 silver drachmas he also has (l. 6). Cf. Christof Schuler, “Ein Priestertum der Artemis in Arykanda,” Chiron 33 (2003): 500: “216 Silberdrachmen, und den [gesamten Betrag] hat [ - - ] erhalten.” 286 This is Schuler’s interpretation. See Schuler, “Priestertum.” Cf. SEG 53.651. 287 Cf. SEG 35.470; FD 3.5.61 (col. II A, ll. 9–10). See also another instance in the fragmentary leasing contract of public lands, IMylasa 823, l. 1 (I B.C.). The text is too lacunose to make much sense, however. Cf. W. H. Buckler, “Documents from Mylasa,” ABSA 22 (1916/1917–1917/1918): 191–95, #1a. 288 Ed. pr. W. M. Calder, “Inscriptions d’Iconium,” RPh 36.1 (1912): 75–77, #48. The participle ἐπιµετρήσαντος suggested to Calder that the payment may have been made in kind (i.e., grain). Ramsay initially cast doubt on this inscription since neither he nor Calder had actually seen it (Calder only saw a copy done by a certain Prodromos, who may have restored the first four lines). He considered the exordium (ll.1–4) containing the names of unknown consuls to be an accidental forgery by Prodromos, yet maintained the genuineness of the last four lines reproduced above, which record a receipt by an imperial slave for the tithe levied on surrounding lands. See W. M. Ramsay, “A Doubtful Inscription,” Klio 23 (1930): 20–23; idem, “Mystery of a Doubtful Inscription,” Klio 25 (1932): 422–27; W. M. Calder, “Unverified Documents from Konia,” Klio 24 (1931): 100–101. Cf. also Robert who expressed his surprise at Ramsay’s initial hesitations and gave his support to Calder’s restoration. L. Robert, Hellenica 13 (1965), 248–50. 289 Ramsay, “Mystery,” 424. 290 About 40% of these inscriptions cannot be dated precisely. 291 Ἀπέχω can sometimes be replaced in this formula by ἔχω (e.g., SEG 2.299, 12.235, 12.237, 12.239, 12.242–244, 12.247).

112

Part One: Philological Survey

said to have sold (fictitiously) the slave to Apollo, the transaction is then officially recorded as follows: τ(ε)ιµᾶς ἀργυρίου µνᾶν (τοῦ ἀριθµοῦ) καὶ τὰν τ(ε)ιµὰν ἀπέχει πᾶσαν.292 We may deduce from this overview that the formulaic use of ἀπέχω in epigraphic sources appears to have differed little from that in papyri. That is, in almost two-third of recorded cases, it is employed to acknowledge formally the receipt of some monetary contribution that was owed on the basis of a contractual obligation (usually a sale). c) Summary In sum, this survey demonstrates once again the philological value of documentary sources, without which the formulaic usage of the verb ἀπέχω might have never been suspected. As far as we have been able to determine, literary sources have hardly preserved the technical sense of the term which, both in papyri and inscriptions, commonly conveys the receipt of material or monetary goods as a result of some economic transaction. Significantly, this use of the term appears to have been ubiquitous throughout the Roman Greek East and to have undergone no major semantic shift over time. It is also highly suggestive that the verb never seems to have been used to express the acceptance of some donation that might have been given gratuitously (i.e., not in answer to a contractual obligation). Needless to say, these observations will be particularly important to keep in mind when we proceed to read Philippians 4:10–20 with first-century eyes. We might for now only remark that, at first glance, it would appear that Paul was not at all indifferent to such technical financial language. 3.3.2 πληρόω The last term under scrutiny, πληρόω, is equally well established in the lexical tradition and is generally understood to simply mean to fill, to make full, to complete/fulfil.293 Yet it is also well recognised that, depending on the context, the term could sometimes signify to pay in full.294 This sense 292 I.e., he/she has (received) the whole price of (a number of) silver mina(s). There is little point in producing a complete list of all the relevant inscriptions. See for example FD 3.6.5, 3.6.6, 3.6.8–10; GDI II 2116, II 2137, II 2144. Cf. Bradley H. McLean, An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (323 B.C.–A.D. 337) (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2002), 294–97; Llewelyn, NewDocs 6, 72–76, #10. 293 LSJ, s.v. πληρόω; Preisigke, WB 2:320–22; BDAG, s.v. πληρόω; MM, s.v. πληρόω; L&N, s.v. πληρόω; Muraoka, Lexicon, s.v. πληρόω. 294 LSJ, s.v. πληρόω 5.; Preisigke, WB 2:321; BDAG, s.v. πληρόω 1.b.; Meecham, Light, 55–56. See also l. 10 of P.Sorb.Inv. 2253 in Roger S. Bagnall and Klass A. Worp, “A Loan of Money: P.Sorb.Inv. 2253,” APF 29 (1983): 29–31.

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

113

does not seem to have been preserved in literary sources,295 but is quite common in documentary ones, as Moulton and Milligan noticed long ago. However, they adduced only eight examples in which the verb indicates the (re)payment of money (δραχµὴν µίαν; P.Hib. I 40), of a loan (τὸ δάνηον; BGU IV 1055), of interests (τὸν τόκον; P.Oxy. I 114), of wages or rental fees ([το]ὺς µισθούς; P.Grenf. II 77), and of a debt (ὅσα ἐποφίλω, P.Oxy. VI 902; cf. P.Oxy. XII 1489; P.Fay. 135).296 They envisaged that this sense might apply to Philippians 4:18 and concluded, in agreement with several commentators, that Paul probably meant to say: “I have received payment … my account is settled.”297 a) Papyrological Evidence The evidence provided by Moulton and Milligan is not in question and can certainly be corroborated by a significant number of additional examples drawn from a large variety of documents, such as letters,298 contracts,299 receipts,300 petitions and legal transcripts,301 or accounts,302 in which the verb is used to acknowledge formally a full (re)payment of some sort. Once again, the bulk of evidence being quite large, we will mainly focus on an illustrative sample dating from around A.D. I. A first interesting example consists of the following receipt for the repayment of a loan of 300 silver drachmas and its interests (P.Yale I 65; A.D. ca. 141–144?). After acknowledging the reimbursement in typical fashion (ll. 9–16: ὁµολογῶ ἀπέχειν παρὰ σοῦ … [ἀρ]γυρίου δραχµὰς τριακ[οσίας τοῦ κε]φαλαίου καὶ τοὺς ὀφι[λοµένους] τόκους), the original agreement of the loan and the calculation of the interests are then reiterated (ll. 16–27): τὸ δὲ κεφάλειον δανισθέν σοι ὑπ’ ἐµοῦ κατὰ χειρόγραφον γεγονὸς διὰ τῆς αὐ[τ]ῆς τραπέζης … κατὰ µῆνας τριάκ[οντα] δραχµὰς ὀκτὼ ἄχρι οὗ

295

We were unable to find any relevant examples within 1,600 instances of the verb prior to A.D. II (LSJ and BDAG only adduce papyrological examples). In historical writings, the verb is primarily employed to refer to the manning of triremes (πληρόω τὰς ναῦς /τριήρεις; cf. Thucydides, Hist. 8.15.1; Isocrates, Or. 4.90; Xenophon, Hell. 5.1.5; Polybius, Hist. 4.50.5; Diodorus Siculus 14.72.1). The sense to pay in full does not occur in the LXX, Pseudepigraphical literature, the NT (except perhaps in Phil 4:18, as we shall see), the apostolic fathers, Philo, and Josephus. 296 MM, s.v. πληρόω. Cf. Dodd, “Pauline Illustrations,” 291–94. 297 MM, s.v. πληρόω. Cf. Dodd, “Pauline Illustrations,” 295. Moulton and Milligan also cite J. Moffatt, and E. J. Goodspeed, but without giving a reference. 298 E.g., BGU XVI 2607; SB VI 9122; P.Oxy. II 298. 299 E.g., BGU II 409; BGU IV 1020, 1132; PSI VII 788. 300 E.g., BGU III 808, 828; PSI VII 788. 301 E.g., P.Ryl. II 113; P.Fam.Tebt. 19. 302 E.g., UPZ I 86.

114

Part One: Philological Survey

πληροθ[ῶ] (= πληρωθῶ) τῷ προκειµένῳ κεφαλαίῳ κ[αὶ] τοῖς τόκοις.303 Even though the ending of πληρόω is slightly truncated, it is quite plain that the creditor herein certifies in writing that he has lent a capital sum (τὸ κεφάλαιον)304 at usury, which he expects to be repaid in full (πληρόω) with interests (τοῖς τόκοις).305 The presence of the two verbs ἀπέχω and πληρόω in this document is also noteworthy, although we cannot really speak of a collocation here.306 A similar example is found in a partially preserved loan contract from Alexandria (BGU IV 1151; 13 B.C.), in which the repayment of the interests is stipulated by the following clause: µέχρι τοῦ πληρωθ(ῆναι) τὸ προκ(είµενον) κεφάλαιο(ν) οὐδεµί(αν) δόσιν κοιλὴ(ν) ποιούµενοι (2.V., ll. 32– 33).307 The term could also be used in this sense in non-contractual documents, however. In BGU XVI 2607 (15 B.C.), for instance, a certain Sotas concludes his letter to his business partner or agent (whom he calls his brother; cf. l. 1), by urging him not to delay (his coming?) as the builders have paid the due wages: καὶ οἱ τέκτονες πεπληρώκασι τοὺς µισθούς (ll. 23–24). Similarly, in a private correspondence from Alexandria (P.Mich. VIII 510; A.D. II–III), a certain Taeis acknowledges her son’s help to pay her public dues as follows: πεπλήρωκα πάντα τὰ δηµό[σ]ια τῇ σῇ χάριτι (ll. 21–22). Examples such as these could easily be multiplied, although the condition of certain documents can sometimes leave an element of doubt.308 On other occasions, the lack of contextual information obscures the intended meaning. For instance, it is not entirely clear what is meant in the ostracon O.Claud. III 536 (ca. A.D. 147), in which a certain Philokalos initially acknowledges that he has received a sum of money, which he commits himself to pay back from his salary: ὁµολωγῶ εἰληφέναι δραχµὰ̣[ς] ε̣ ἃς {ἃς} καὶ ἀποδώ ̣ ̣ ̣ vac. τῷ ὀψωνίου (ll. 4–6).309 The ostracon concludes in a second hand with the mention: Φιλόκαλος πηλρωσ̣ ε ̣ (= πληρώσω? πληρώ σε?). Should one understand it to mean that Philokalos will repay the ad303 I.e., and the capital sum was lent to you by me according to a cheirographon through the same bank … (on the basis of a reimbursement of) eight drachmas per month for thirty months until I have been repaid the aforesaid capital sum with interests. 304 Cf. MM, s.v. κεφάλαιον. 305 A similar usage of πληρόω may be found in a poorly preserved contract (BGU III 865; A.D. II): καθ’ ἕκ[ασ]τον ἔτος ἀργυρίου τάλαντα δύο ἕως οὗ πληρωθῇ τὸ διαπ[ ̣ ̣] (l. 6). 306 Fifteen lines separate the two verbs. 307 I.e., until the aforesaid capital sum be paid back in full without any payment lacking. Cf. BGU III 834; BGU IV 1132, 1149, 1171 (the ὁ Στέφανος πεπληρωµένος, ll. 22– 23, is the reimbursed lender). 308 E.g., BGU XV 2474; SB VI 9122; P.Oxy. II 298. 309 Cuvigny suggested restoring σὺν τῷ ὀψωνίου, i.e., ὀψωνίῳ. Cuvigny, O.Claud. III, p. 212.

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

115

vance in due time? The editio princeps (ed. pr.) remained perplexed and suggested the following translation: “Je paierai (?) intégralement.” 310 An equally ambiguous document is the fragmented account UPZ I 86 (162 B.C.), which begins with an entry recording a receipt for some money or some merchandise, the nature of which is never explicitly stated in the rest of the document: (Ἄρης ̣εργήυτι χα[ί]ριν) πεπ[λ]ήιρωκάς µε ἀπὸ (= ἔτους) κ̄ Θῶυθ ᾱ ἥως Φαῶφι ῑ (ll. 1–2; cf. col. 1, ll. 3–4: ἀπέχω παρὰ Ἀ̣[ρ]ή̣[ου] ˫̣ ’Γ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣(?); col. 2, ll. 6–11: τούτων ἀπέχει Ἄρης πα[ρ’] ἐµοῦ [Χ]οίαχ θ£ ˫ ’Αυ).311 These examples illustrate quite well the salient difficulty in determining the connotation of πληρόω when a direct object is missing and/or when the context provides little information. When the object refers to material goods or agricultural produce, as opposed to cash, one might be inclined to consider that πληρόω simply signifies to provide or to supply. In most examined cases, however, it is unlikely that the actual transaction would have taken place without any kind of (contractual) obligation, goods being most often delivered in accordance with a contract or a consensual agreement. Hence, the verb should probably be understood as meaning to pay in full (in kind). This observation applies particularly to agricultural leases which frequently stipulate that rent should be paid in kind, as is illustrated in PSI VII 788 (A.D. 125): πληρώσοµέν σοι ἀρούρας ὀκ̣ [τώ κτλ.] (l. 7).312 Likewise, in O.Claud. III 528 (ca. A.D. 145/146), the recipient acknowledges the delivery of some merchandise as follows: [ὁ]µολογῶ πεπληρῶσθαι [ – ca. ? – τ]ὸ̣ κιβάριν313 τοῦ Μεχειρ. In this instance, the goods received most likely consisted of the monthly ration of lentils and oil

310

Cuvigny, O.Claud. III, p. 211. The literacy of this second hand is questionable since it misspelt the word as πηλρωσε. Cuvigny thought the hand intended the aorist imperative πλήρωσον, thereby ordering a third party to make the payment on Philokalos’ behalf. Ibid., p. 212. 311 I.e., (Ares to Thergeuti [?], greetings.) You have fully paid me from the 1st of Thoth of the 20 th year until the 10th of Phaophi (ll. 1–2). Cf. col. 1, ll. 3–4: I have received from [Ares?] 3,000 drachmas (?); col. 2, ll. 6–11: Ares has thus received from me on the 9th of Choiach 1,400 drachmas. 312 Cf. BGU XII 2163, 2194. 313 One should read κιβάριον, i.e., cibarium (provision, ration, allowance), a term often encountered in the ostraca from Mons Claudianus (cf. O.Claud. I 173; O.Claud. III 417, 436, 441, 485, 498). In the army, it referred to the ration of non-grain food and wine distributed to soldiers by the cibariator (e.g., O.Claud. I 3, 5, 6; O.Claud. III 421). However, in this context, “le kibarion … désigne la ration de lentilles avec son assaisonnement, l’huile.” Cuvigny, O.Claud. III, p. 59. Cf. ibid., 85. See also LSJ, s.v. κιβάριον, κιβαριάτωρ; OLD, s.v. cibaria, cibarius; O. Fiebiger, “Cibaria,” PW[1] 3: 2535–36; Jonathan P. Roth, The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C.–A.D. 235) (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 24–26.

116

Part One: Philological Survey

which were supplied to members of the familia (Caesaris)314 working at the quarry of Mons Claudianus, in which case πληρόω would convey the sense of paying what was (contractually) due as a wage. This is certainly the interpretation retained by the ed. pr. who translated: “Je reconnais avoir reçu la totalité […] de mon salaire de Mecheir.”315 These few examples thus further highlight the necessity to pay particular attention to the context to determine the exact connotation of πληρόω. In later centuries, the term seems to have been employed in a more formulaic fashion, and is increasingly found in a passive infinitive form (πεπληρῶσθαι) in a ὁµολογῶ clause, not unlike in O.Claud. III 528. As such, it is frequently used in collocation with the verbs ἔχω,316 δέχοµαι,317 or µισθόω,318 though, as far as our survey of the evidence is concerned, never with ἀπέχω. The latter verb is actually much more commonly employed in conjunction with the phrase ἐκ πλήρους.319 From a pragmatic point of view, however, it is difficult to see how πληρόω and ἐκ πλήρους might have differed semantically. Significantly, the perfect passive form πεπλήρωµαι, which Paul employs in Philippians 4:18, is never found prior to A.D. IV,320 and is also often observed in collocation with ἔχω. O.Bodl. II 2138 (A.D. IV), a receipt (ἀποχή) for a rent instalment, illustrates this seemingly redundant collocation of the two verbs in a way that is reminiscent of Philippians 4:18: ἔσχον καὶ πεπλήρωµαι παρὰ σοῦ τὸν φόρον µου ὑπὲρ ἧς ἐγεώρ̣γ̣ ησας γῆς ἐν τόπῳ Νιπελχ̣ω̣ η̣ ς ̣ … καὶ ἐξέδωκά σοι τὴν ἀποχὴν ὡς π(ρόκειται) (ll. 3–6).321 One may surmise that ἔχω here conveys the actual receipt of the payment, while πληρόω places emphasis on the fact that the outstanding sum has been fully paid. A similar usage of πληρόω can also be noted in later receipts wherein it has the same sense, as it is almost always employed to 314

The expression familia Caesaris never appears in inscriptions and ostraca from Mons Claudianus. However, since what relates to the familia is said to be κυριακός, it most likely consisted of the familia Caesaris. See Cuvigny, O.Claud. III, p. 12. For a more detailed discussion see ibid., 24–41. 315 Cuvigny, O.Claud. III, p. 206 (emphasis added). 316 E.g., P.Oxy. LXXII 4597; BGU III 808, 828, 837; BGU XII 2199, 2205, 2207– 2210; BGU XVII 2694, 2695. 317 E.g., BGU II 371; BGU XII 2194. 318 E.g., BGU II 409. 319 E.g., BGU XV 2479; BGU II 453; CPR I 4; CPR XV 2; O.Claud. III 548; P.Mich.V 293. 320 The earliest examples are O.Bodl. II 2138; P.Ant. II 106; and P.Flor. I 27. In literary sources, Aesop’s Fab. 234 contains the only instance earlier that Phil 4:18, according to the TLG. 321 I.e., I have (received) and have been paid by you my rent for the land which you cultivated in the place of Nipelchoes … and I handed over to you the receipt as prescribed. Cf. CPR VII 45; P.Cair.Masp. III 67327; P.Grenf. II 81 A.

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

117

acknowledge the receipt of the proceeds of a sale,322 rent or wage payments,323 the reimbursement of a debt,324 or the share of an inheritance.325 b) Epigraphic Evidence In epigraphic sources, the term is less common and often expresses the fulfilment of a civic duty or magistracy. 326 The sense to pay in full is also attested, but only rarely and mostly during the imperial period, as will be exemplified by the following documents. A first instance consists of a fragmented imperial inscription from southern Troas recording the provisions of banquets (εἱστιάσεις) and distributions of gifts (δωρεὰν διανείµαντα) by a generous benefactor, who is also reported to have financed a wheat-fund (τὸ σιτωνικόν) at his own expense: καὶ τὸν σειτω[νικὸν] πόρον πληρώσαντα ἐκ τῶ[ν ἰδίων ε]ἰς δηνάρια µύρια (IMT Troas 581).327 The financial connotation of πληρώσαντα leaves little doubt considering that this patron spent 10,000 denarii. The same connotation is also found in an honorific decree from Oenoanda in Lycia celebrating a certain M. Aurelius Apollonius for his peaceful and devout magistracy (µετὰ πάσης εἰρήνης κ[αὶ] εὐσεβείας τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐκτελέσαντα, ll. 14–15), and for his patronage of the local Apollonic cult (IGRR 3.488 = OGI 565; A.D. III). 328 Indeed, he is reported to have replenished the temple treasury (most likely by means of a personal loan), which he recovered in a befitting manner: πληρώσαντα καὶ [εἰς] τὸ ἱερώτατον ταµεῖον τοὺς ἱεροὺς φόρους καὶ τὴν πρᾶξιν ποιησάµενον ἐπεικῶς καὶ τειµητικῶς (ll. 16–20).329 A certain Heliodoros from Philadelphia was remembered in a similar fashion in an honorific inscription acclaiming his many benefactions, such as his generous provision of the temple treasury: πληρώσαντα δὲ καὶ τὸ 322

BGU XII 2176; CPR VII 45; CPR XIX 31; SB XXII 15284; P.Stras. IV 246; P.Giss. I 122; P.Heid. V 356; P.Iand. III 38 R; SB XVI 12486; SB XVI 12489; P.Gen. IV 190; SPP III 141, III 144 + 381, III 200; and perhaps also P.Herm. 37 (no information is given as to why money is received, however). 323 P.Grenf. II 81; BGU XVII 2680; P.Cair.Masp. III 67327; P.Lond. III 1020; P.Michael. 49; P.Münch. III 103; P.Ross.Georg. III 48; P.Cair.Masp. II 67136; BGU XVII 2714; P.Stras. I 1; P.Stras. VII 640; SB XX 15014; SB XXVI 16530; SPP III 150 A. 324 BGU XVII 2716. 325 SPP III 97. In one instance, P.Stras. V 493, the nature of the transaction is unclear. 326 E.g., IG XII.5.946; CIG 2795; IEph 43; IPrusiasHyp 6. Cf. Robert, Sardes, 39 (n. 5); L. Robert, Hellenica 2 (1946): 143 (n. 8). 327 I.e., and he furnished the wheat-fund, paying 10,000 denarii from his own (account). 328 Based on this patronymic, the inscription most likely post-dates A.D. 212. 329 Cf. Holleaux and Paris’ concluding comments: “D’après les dernières lignes, il semble que M. Aurélius Apollonius avait fait l’avance des impôts dûs au fisc, et recouvré ensuite la somme avancée, en usant de ménagements envers les contribuables.” Maurice Holleaux and Pierre Paris, “Inscriptions d’Oenoanda,” BCH 10 (1886): 226.

118

Part One: Philological Survey

ἱερώτατον ταµεῖον παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ (ll. 15–16; CIG 3419).330 In this case, L. Robert affirmed, πληρόω has the “sens du grec moderne, ‘payer’.”331 This connotation is further observed in the inscription of a Dionysiac association from Smyrna (ISmyrna 2.1.731; A.D. 80), which mentions those who have paid their entrance fees in full: οἱ πεπληρωκότες τὰ ἰσηλύσια (ll. 14– 15).332 It is also found on several columns of the forum at Gerasa in the form of ὁ δεῖνα ἐπλήρωσεν (IGerasa 75–77; A.D. II). The idea herein conveyed is that the person provided financially for the erection of the monument, so that “the verb πληροῦν … is perhaps best understood in the meaning ‘to pay for’.”333 On other occasions, benefactors are said to have contributed to the prize of a contest (κιθαριστοῦ ἀγῶνα πληρώσας τὸ θέµα, ll. 14–15; IG VII 4151, A.D. II), or to public banquets and other festivities (πληρώσας δὲ ταῦτα [πάντ]α, l. 21; IG VII 2712, ca. A.D. 50).334 c) Summary These few examples thus further substantiate Moulton and Milligan’s initial observations. The verb πληρόω is certainly found to signify to pay in full in a large corpus of papyrological and epigraphic evidence. It will remain for us to decide whether this sense is also the most suitable in Philippians 4:18. Just as in documentary sources, context will be crucial in helping us determine the connotation Paul might have had in mind.

330 The date is not given but it is most likely from the imperial era. Cf. IGRR 4.1637; LBW 647. 331 Robert, Sardes, 39 (n. 5). 332 One should most likely read εἰσηλυσία, as Boeckh notes: “ἰσηλύσια nihil aliud est nisi εἰσηλύσια” (CIG 2.3173; cf. LSJ, s.v. εἰσηλυσία). This clause should thus be understood in the way G. Lafaye has suggested: “qui pecuniam debitam contulerunt cum in collegium admissi sunt” (IGRR IV 1393; cf. IGRR IV 1748). Cf. Anne-Françoise Jaccottet, Choisir Dionysos: Les associations dionysiaques ou la face cachée du dionysisme (Zürich: Akanthus, 2003), 207–208, #116. 333 C. H. Kraeling, IGerasa 77, p. 410. Cf. Robert, Sardes, 39 (n. 5). In IGerasa 84, the letters ΚΑΤΑΠΛ (τοῦ δεῖνος) may stand for κατὰ πλήρωσιν (τοῦ δεῖνος), i.e., ἐπλήρωσεν ὁ δεῖνα. 334 The stone of this honorary inscription for a certain Epameinondas is badly damaged at this point, and it is not entirely clear what is referred by the object ταῦτα [πάντ]α. It is however reasonable to suggest that it is alluding to the feasts and other expenses mentioned in ll. 17 ([δ]είπνοις), 19 (δηµοθοινία[ις]), 21 (δαπάνη[ς παρ’ ἑα]υτοῦ). Similar benefactions are recorded in the rest of the inscription (e.g., l. 23: τῇ ἑορτῆι ταυροθυτήσας). Cf. Paulette Ghiron-Bistagne, Recherches sur les acteurs dans la Grèce antique (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1976), 201 (n. 2).

Chapter 3: Paul’s Economic Terminology

119

3.4 Summary This survey has proven to be particularly useful in helping us clarify the possible economic connotations of the terms under scrutiny, which are usually only mentioned in passing in standard lexica. In several cases, a fresh examination of a large sample of documentary materials has enabled us to uncover new philological evidence highlighting the economic connotations of certain terms (ἡ δόσις, πληρόω), to refine our appreciation of the possible formulaic usage of ἀπέχω, to elucidate the significance of an unusual construction (εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως), to question the commonly accepted technicality of καρπός, as well as to suggest a rare and unsuspected economic nuance for δόµα. This study will no doubt allow us to appreciate more accurately the significance of Paul’s language in Philippians 4:15–20, which so far seems to resemble more closely that of contemporary documentary sources than that of literary sources (including Jewish ones). Our investigation thus further confirms the pertinent observations of earlier commentators and the relevance of Deissmann’s methodology, while contributing to delineating more sharply the semantic source and possible range of application of these terms. This will provide us with valuable insight when we turn our attention to Paul’s economic discourse in Philippians. For the time being, however, it is imperative that we perform an equally rigorous philological examination of κοινων- cognates in literary and documentary sources. We shall begin in the next chapter by considering the history of scholarship on the question, before exploring the possible economic connotations of κοινωνέω, κοινωνός, and κοινωνία, in a subsequent chapter.

Chapter 4

History of Research on Κοινωνία and its Cognates 4.1 Introduction In the next two chapters, we shall investigate the significance and contextual usage(s) of κοινων- cognates in ancient literary and documentary sources.1 In particular, we shall seek to determine whether the verb κοινωνέω, and the substantives κοινωνός and κοινωνία,2 could assume a more specific socio-economic connotation in certain contexts, as is sometimes indicated in lexica.3 Whilst in the next chapter we shall focus on inscriptions and papyri in which these terms are employed, in the present chapter we shall offer a critical review of a number of philological and theological studies that have explored the possible theological and/or sociological dimensions of κοινωνία. We shall begin with four of the most significant philological works by J. Y. Campbell, H. Seesemann, P. J. T. Endenburg, and N. Baumert, before briefly considering more theologically-oriented studies. This overview will serve to highlight that a thorough examination of κοινων- cognates in ancient documents remains a highly desirable project, one which we shall undertake in the next chapter.

1 Apart from the adjective κοινωνικός in 1 Tim 6:18, no other cognate of the κοινωνfamily is found in the NT or the LXX. See Lev 5:21; 2 Kgs 17:11; 2 Chr 20:35; Esth 8:12; Prov 1:11, 28:24; Eccl 9:4; Job 34:8; Mal 2:14; Isa 1:23; 2 Macc 5:20, 14:25; 3 Macc 2:31, 4:6, 11; Sir 6:10, 13:1–2, 17, 41:19, 42:3; Wis 6:23, 8:18; Matt 23:30; Luke 5:10; Acts 2:42; Rom 12:13, 15:26–27; 1 Cor 1:9, 10:16, 18, 20; 2 Cor 1:7, 6:14, 8:4, 23, 9:13, 13:13; Gal 2:9, 6:6; Phil 1:5, 2:1, 3:10, 4:15; 1 Tim 5:22; Phlm 6, 17; Heb 2:14, 10:33, 13:16; 1 Pet 4:13, 5:1; 2 Pet 1:4; 1 John 1:3, 6–7; 2 John 1:11. 2 As a derived form of κοινών, κοινωνός is technically an adjective. However, it is almost always employed as a substantive and is classified as such in lexica. Cf. LSJ, s.v. κοινωνός; BDAG, s.v. κοινωνός. See also Mayser, Grammatik, 1:446; J. Y. Campbell, “ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ and Its Cognates in the New Testament,” JBL 51.4 (1932): 353. 3 See for instance LSJ, s.v. κοινών, κοινωνέω I.2., κοινώνηµα 1., κοινώνησις 2., κοινωνία 1.b., κοινωνικός, κοινωνός 2; MM, s.v. κοινωνία, κοινωνός; Hauck, TDNT 3:798, s.v. κοινωνός; Muraoka, Lexicon, s.v. κοινωνία 1. Cf. Popkes, “Gemeinschaft,” RAC 9:1102– 1103; Horsley, NewDocs 1, 84–85, #40; idem, NewDocs 3, 101, #4; Llewelyn, NewDocs 9, 47–48, #18.

Chapter 4: History of Research on Κοινωνία

121

4.2 Philologically-Oriented Studies 4.2.1 Κοινωνία and its Cognates in the New Testament (J. Y. Campbell) As far as we are aware, J. Y. Campbell was the first, in 1932, to attempt a systematic survey of the literary evidence relating to κοινων- cognates. His primary aim was to examine their use in the NT and to address the “delicate exegetical problems” of the passages in which they appear, by adducing hitherto neglected philological evidence drawn from non-biblical authors.4 As he rightly suggested, “a study of the meaning and the syntactical usage of the words in ordinary Greek ought to throw some light upon the disputed questions regarding them in the New Testament.”5 Campbell focused on a narrow selection of twenty writers ranging from Pindar (V B.C.) to Dio Cassius (A.D. III), for he had to rely on the few concordances available to him at the time (hence, he omitted Josephus entirely as no word-index existed then).6 Despite his limited means, he was able to collect some six hundred examples of the terms κοινωνία, κοινωνός, and κοινωνέω, in classical authors,7 and thus to make some insightful suggestions as to their use and significance in the NT and in Paul’s letters in particular. Seeking to correct earlier erroneous understandings, Campbell initially defined κοινωνός as “one who has something in common with someone else,” emphasising that “the primary idea expressed by κοινωνός and its cognates is not that of association with another person or other persons, but that of participation in something in which others also participate.”8 Campbell further remarked that, in most cases, are mentioned both the thing which is shared, which is usually indicated by a partitive genitive and sometimes by a prepositional phrase, and the person with whom it is shared, who, when not omitted, is normally referred to by a dative.9 Whenever such information is simply implied by the context, he suggested that one could nonetheless be confident that “κοινωνός means little, if anything, more than ‘a participant in’ (= µέτοχος),” or perhaps a partner.10 This is certainly the case when κοινωνός is used on its own in Demosthenes, for

4

Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 352. Campbell identified 1 Cor 10:16 as particularly problematic. Ibid., 360. 5 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 352. 6 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 352. 7 It is regrettable that he did not provide the reader with a detailed index of his findings. 8 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 353 (italics original). 9 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 353–55. 10 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 354.

122

Part One: Philological Survey

whom “it has the special sense of ‘partner in a business enterprise’.”11 Thus, it ought to be understood as “a natural abbreviation for κοινωνὸς πραγµάτων or some such phrase.”12 On other occasions, the sense of κοινωνός is made clear by its collocation with nouns that “define the character of the partnership” (e.g., Xenophon, Cyr. 4.2.21: συµµάχους καὶ κοινωνούς; Plato, Resp. 369c: κοινωνούς τε καὶ βοηθούς).13 Interestingly, Campbell observed this sense in the NT as well: In Philem.17, εἰ οὖν µε ἔχεις κοινωνόν, we have an instance of κοινωνός in the sense of ‘business-partner’ which is not infrequent in Demosthenes. In this whole passage Paul makes half-playful but very effective use of business terms in writing of the spiritual relationship between Philemon and himself. The word is probably used in the same sense in Lk. 5 10, already referred to.14

The latter passage, Campbell thought, provided another good illustration of the lexical similarity between κοινωνός and µέτοχος, which is employed in Luke 5:7 to designate “those who at the time happened to be sharing in the work of fishing,” while κοινωνός identifies “those who were regularly partners with him [Peter], sharing in the profits.”15 Regrettably, however, Campbell offered no comments on Paul’s use of συγκοινωνός in Philippians 1:7. Next, Campbell considered the verb κοινωνέω, whose “primary meaning is simply ‘to be a κοινωνός’, i.e., ‘to have something in common with someone else’,” since it “is formed directly from κοινωνός.”16 As in the case of κοινωνός, he judged “the idea of association with that other person” to be “derivative and secondary.”17 He observed the same construction with a partitive genitive (of the thing shared) and/or a dative of person (with whom the thing is shared), but noted that, just as with κοινωνός, it is often omitted when the information provided by the genitive and the dative can easily be deduced from the immediate context.18 In contrast with κοινωνός, however, Campbell perceived that κοινωνέω “is used almost from the beginning in the sense of ‘to associate with,’ without any indication of anything which is shared,” and, by extension, to signify “to participate in something along with someone,” though rarely “in the sense of ‘to associate with persons’.”19 The latter, he argued, is sometimes conveyed by the 11 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 354. In Epictetus, perhaps the only other author to use κοινωνός in such a way, its meaning is more general, however. 12 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 354. 13 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 353. 14 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 362. 15 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 362. 16 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 355. 17 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 355. 18 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 355. 19 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 355–56 (italics original).

Chapter 4: History of Research on Κοινωνία

123

compound συγκοινωνέω, a term uncommon in documents prior to the NT,20 which suggested to him that “the idea of association with someone else was not always felt to be expressed plainly by κοινωνεῖν.”21 When this notion is pushed in the background, he proposed that “the meaning of [κοινωνεῖν] is indistinguishable from that of µετέχειν, with which it is frequently combined,” if not used interchangeably, as in Aristotle’s Politics.22 As regards Philippians 4:15 then, Campbell understood the prepositional phrase εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως to be replacing a partitive genitive, as is sometimes the case in Plato (e.g., Resp. 5.453), and thus offered the translation: “no church shared with me a debit and credit account.”23 Finally, Campbell turned his attention to κοινωνία, “the abstract noun corresponding to κοινωνός and κοινωνεῖν,” whose meaning he determined to be “‘(the) having something in common with someone’.”24 He posited that, unlike the previous two cognates, κοινωνία evokes both “ideas of participation and of association,” though in practice emphasis is usually placed on one or the other. Campbell thus resisted the common but “mistaken insistence that ‘fellowship’ is always the important idea expressed by κοινωνεῖν and its cognates.”25 He also noted that κοινωνία could be found with three types of genitives: 1) a partitive genitive of the thing shared (by far the most common construction); 2) a subjective genitive; 3) and, more rarely, a genitive of the person with whom one shares or associates (in lieu of a dative of person).26 Despite its inherent abstractness, Campbell suggested that “κοινωνία can become concrete, with the sense of ‘community’ or ‘society,’ by a natural development from the abstract meaning ‘association’,” though “it has no concrete denotation corresponding to ‘participation’.”27 Another concrete sense of κοινωνία he observed was partnership, such as is sometimes encountered in Aristotle (e.g., Pol. 3.1276b: κοινωνία πολιτῶν πολιτείας, which he translated as “a partnership of citizens in a constitution”).28 He

20 According to the TLG, it appears only twelve times prior to the NT and three times in the NT (Eph 5:11; Phil 4:14; Rev. 18:4). 21 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 363. 22 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 355. Campbell provided no references for such examples in Aristotle’s Politics. 23 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 369. 24 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 356 (italics original). 25 He did think that this sense seemed to be applicable to 1 John, however. Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 369. Cf. ibid., 372. 26 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 357. 27 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 356. 28 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 357.

124

Part One: Philological Survey

also found this sense to be applicable to Leviticus 6:2,29 in which the Hebrew hapax legomenon ‫שׂוּמת‬ ֶ ‫ ְתּ‬is usually translated as pledge or security,30 but which the LXX renders as περὶ κοινωνίας. Campbell thus deduced that it herein “refers to the agreement or partnership of which the pledge is the token rather than to the latter itself.”31 And indeed, the context and the collocation of κοινωνία with the technical term παραθήκη, which usually designates a deposit (often in a bank),32 would seem to give support to this interpretation. Similarly, he proposed that the sense “partnership” should be understood in Galatians 2:9 (δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐµοὶ καὶ Βαρναβᾷ κοινωνίας), wherein it signifies “quite definitely … ‘going shares in an enterprise,’ rather than the vaguer sense of ‘fellowship’.”33 Campbell was slightly less specific in his interpretation of Philippians 1:5, however, rejecting the (then common) understanding that κοινωνία has “the concrete sense of ‘contribution’,” and suggesting instead that Paul herein “has chosen to express his thought in a more general way.”34 He also noted the presence of a subjective genitive (ὑµῶν) in the expression ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑµῶν (the only such subjective genitive in the NT), and concluded that the prepositional phrase εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον was used instead of a second genitive, which might have

29 The verse is sometimes referenced as 5:21. It is cited by Philo in Spec. 1:235, but, unfortunately, he provides no explanation as to what he understood the expression περὶ κοινωνίας to mean. 30 Most modern Bible versions follow the Hebrew text here (cf. NAS, NIV, NKJ, RSV, ESV, 1910 Bible Louis Segond; 1979 Nouvelle Edition Genève; Schlachter Bibel 2000; Zürcher Bibel 2008). The editors of the Clementine Vulgate understood the verse altogether differently: Anima quae peccaverit, et contempto Domino, negaverit proximo suo depositum quod fidei ejus creditum fuerat, vel vi aliquid extorserit, aut calumniam fecerit. Cf. 1545 Luther Bibel: “das ihm zu treuer Hand getan ist” (which was changed in the Neue Luther Bibel to “was ihm hinterlegt worden ist”). Cf. BDB, s.v. ‫וּמ ת‬ ֶ ‫ ; ְתּ ֫שׂ‬TWOT, s.v. ‫תּשׂוּמ ת‬. ֶ 31 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 360. Seesemann was also sceptical about the appropriateness of the translation found in most modern Bible versions: “Es erscheint mir sehr unsicher, wenn nicht gar unmöglich zu sein, daß κοινωνία Lev. 6 2 ‘das Hinterlegte’ bedeutet. Dagegen spricht nicht nur, daß κοινωνία nirgends so nachgewiesen ist, sondern auch die Erklärung, die der Ausdrück ‫( ְת ֤שׂ וּ ֶמ ת י ָד‬der im AT nur hier vorkommt) sonst erfahren hat” (p. 29). He suggested the translation das Gemeinsame instead. See Heinrich Seesemann, Der Begriff ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ im Neuen Testament (Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1933), 29–31. Cf. Muraoka, Lexicon, s.v. κοινωνία 1: “joint-ownership.” 32 Cf. LSJ, s.v. παραθήκη; MM, s.v. παραθήκη; Dieter Simon, “Quasi-ΠΑΡΑΚΑΤΑΘΗΚΗ: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Morphologie griechisch-hellenistischer Schuldrechtstatbestände,” ZRG 82 (1965): 39–66 (esp. 44–46); Bogaert, Banques, 92 (n. 181), 251, 283; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 349–52; Korver, Terminologie, 31–39. 33 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 373. 34 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 371.

Chapter 4: History of Research on Κοινωνία

125

caused some confusion, to refer to the Philippians’ participation in Paul’s preaching of the gospel.35 Much more could of course be said about Campbell’s many pertinent observations. For the sake of conciseness, however, we have confined ourselves to those that are most relevant to our investigation. Despite being somewhat limited in its scope, the depth and quality of its critical analysis have ensured that Campbell’s survey has remained of fundamental importance to the philological study of κοινων- cognates. Even though Campbell did not adduce any documentary evidence, his essay certainly constituted an important step in the right direction and established a solid foundation on which future studies, ours included, could build. 4.2.2 Der Begriff Κοινωνία im Neuen Testament (H. Seesemann) Almost concurrently with Campbell, H. Seesemann also undertook a thorough investigation of κοινωνία and its cognates, the results of which he published a year later in 1933. Noticing “mannigfache Erklärungen” in contemporary scholarship, he had indeed become convinced of the need for “eine genaueren Untersuchung des Begriffs κοινωνία im NT.”36 His objective was to conduct “eine umfassende Spezialuntersuchung” of “alles einschlägige Material aus der Antike,” in the hope of producing “bestimmtere Ergebnisse.”37 Seesemann somewhat followed the same procedure as Campbell, examining separately the cognates κοινωνέω, κοινωνία, and κοινωνός, im nichtchristlichen Sprachgebrauch first, before turning to the NT. Beginning with κοινωνέω, Seesemann defined its “ursprüngliche Bedeutung” as “‘Anteil haben oder nehmen an etw.’ zur Kennzeichnung eines bestehenden Zustandes.”38 Concurring with Campbell,39 he opposed the misconception that it could mean Anteil geben, only conceding that it is “außerordentlich selten,” and suggested that µεταδιδόναι was the verb normally employed to express such a notion.40 He noted the common usage of κοινωνέω with a partitive genitive (but not a genitive of person), which in the NT is often replaced by a dative or a prepositional phrase,41 and/or with a dative of person (in which case it has the sense of verkehren).42 He also 35

Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 371–72. Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 1. 37 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 1. 38 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 3. 39 Campbell had indeed assured: “It is, in fact, exceedingly difficult to find in writers earlier than the New Testament any certain examples of κοινωνεῖν in the sense of ‘to give a share of something to someone’.” Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 367. 40 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 4–8. 41 Seesemann considered this to be “einen abgeschliffenen Sprachgebrauch” of the classical norm. Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 32–33. 42 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 4–8. 36

126

Part One: Philological Survey

observed its use with the accusative,43 a prepositional phrase,44 or on its own (the absolut Gebrauch), in which case the derived sense would be “‘Gemeinschaft haben’ (die durch gemeinsamen Anteil an etwas entsteht).”45 Like Campbell, he remarked that κοινωνέω and µετέχω can sometimes have a similar sense, though he did not consider them to be synonymous.46 In accordance with his preceding observations, Seesemann thus logically translated Philippians 4:15 as follows: “… hat keine Gemeinde ‘mit mir Anteil gehabt’ (= Gemeinschaft gehabt) im Geben und Nehmen.”47 Whilst he rendered verse 14 as: “‘ihr habt recht getan, mit meinem Leiden Anteil – oder besser: Gemeinschaft – zu haben.”48 As regards κοινωνός, Seesemann agreed with Campbell and initially defined it as “der Teilhaber, die Teilhaberin; der Genosse, die Genossin.”49 He noted its common usage with a Genitiv der Sache in classical Greek, as well as “die Vermeidung der Verbindung mit dem Genetiv der Person.”50 He also observed the use of the noun with a Genitiv der Person in the LXX and the NT to convey the senses Teilhaber (particeps) and Genosse (socius).51 The latter sense he found particularly suitable to Luke 5:10, 2 Corinthians 8:23, and Philemon 17.52 He also perceived that κοινωνός could acquire a more specific economic connotation in documentary sources: “Als Terminus technicus begegnet κοινωνός zur Bezeichnung des Geschäftsteilhabers auf zahlreichen Papyrusurkunden.”53 For example, “[i]n den ‘Revenue laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus’ … werden die Pachtteilhaber κοινωνοί genannt (bzw. κοινῶνες, auch µέτοχοι).”54 However, he seemed reluctant to apply this technical connotation to its use in the NT, refuting, for

43

He only provided three examples of such accusatives, two of which constituted internal accusatives. Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ, 9–10. 44 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 10–11. 45 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 11. 46 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 3 (n. 1): “Nach diesem Beispiel (und anderen) geurteilt wird κοινωνέω τινός und µετέχω τινός in gleicher Bedeutung gebraucht … Daß sie dennoch nicht Synonyma sind, geht daraus hervor, daß κοινωνέω eine Reihe von Bedeutungen erlangen kann, die µετέχω nicht hat, wie z. B.: Zusammensein, verkehren usw.” 47 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 33. 48 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 33–34. 49 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 19. He noted only one adjectival use (Euripides, Iph. taur. 1173). See ibid., 21 (n. 4). 50 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 19. 51 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 52. 52 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 52. 53 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 20–21. 54 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 20–21.

Chapter 4: History of Research on Κοινωνία

127

instance, H. von Soden’s interpretation of κοινωνός in Philemon 17 as “eine Anspielung des Paulus auf gemeinsamen Besitz mit Philemon.”55 Concerning κοινωνία, Seesemann initially stressed its etymological relation with κοινωνέω, from which it derives and whose abstract stative idea it conveys in substantive form (as indicated by the suffix -ία).56 Unlike Campbell, however, he proposed several possible meanings for κοινωνία depending on syntactical constructions. As “die erste Bedeutung,” he suggested “die Teilhabe, Teilnahme, der Anteil,” a sense which is most frequently encountered when κοινωνία is associated with a partitive genitive, and which, he claimed, is only found in the NT in Paul.57 He remarked that a second sense could be encountered “wenn die κοινωνία von zwei (oder mehr) Subjekten ausgesagt wird”: “der gemeinsame Anteil, die gemeinsame Teilnahme,” which naturally leads to the sense Gemeinschaft (viz., “die durch gemeinsame Teilnahme an etwas besteht”).58 He also noted that whenever κοινωνία is linked to a genitive of person, a very rare construction, it signifies “Rechts-, (Besitz-)gemeinschaft, z.B. auf Grund von Erbfolge oder Gesellschaftsvertrag,” as seen in “zahlreichen Papyri” (e.g., P.Flor. I 13, 41; P.Lips. I 6)59 – a meaning he did not apply to Galatians 2:9, however.60 Following the theory of philologist W. Porzig, according to whom an abstract substantive is not limited to the semantic sphere from which it originates,61 Seesemann then further broadened the range of semantic applications of κοινωνία and proposed the following, non-exhaustive list of possible connotations (which are encountered whenever κοινωνία is not connected with a genitive): “enge Verbindung, Zusammengehörigkeit, Vereinigung, Übereinstimmung, Gesamtheit, Gemeinschaft (auch im Sinn einer Vereinigung von Personen) usw.,”62 or even “Mitteilsamkeit” (i.e., 55

Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 52. Seesemann was adamant: “Das geht nicht an. Das Wort κοινωνός ist zu allgemein.” He seemed to have retained the commercial connotation only for Luke 5:10. 56 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 14. 57 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 12, 14–15, 31. 58 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 12. 59 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 15–16. 60 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 86–87. Seesemann indeed insisted that Paul’s agreement with Peter and James was not “ein rechtliches Abkommen.” 61 Porzig cited in Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 13: “Aber die Abstrakta bleiben nicht auf den Kreis, dem sie ihre Entstehung verdanken, beschränkt, sondern haben, wie alle Wörter, eine starke Neigung, sich in der Gemeinsprache auszubreiten. Damit verlieren sie aber ihren Halt an der syntaktischen Wechselbeziehung mit dem zugehörigen Satzinhalt und also auch ihren Charakter als Abstrakta.” 62 This list was not meant to be exhaustive: “Die Mannigfaltigkeit dieser Bedeutungen ist so groß, daß alle überhaupt vorhandenen Möglichkeiten nicht aufgezählt werden können.” Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 13.

128

Part One: Philological Survey

communicativeness, or the ability or propensity to be communicative).63 However, he strongly opposed E. von Dobschütz’ view that κοινωνία could mean Genossenschaft in the sense of societas, arguing “daß κοινωνία sehr selten in der Bedeutung ‘Genossenschaft’ vorkommt”64 – a rather peculiar position since he accepted the sense der Genosse/socius for κοινωνός.65 He nonetheless conceded: “Sie ist dem klassischen Griechisch zwar nicht fremd (bei Aristoteles klingt sie mehrfach an; z.B. Pol. 1252a 2 ff …) – findet sich aber in der Koine nur sehr selten. Häufiger begegnet diese Bedeutung erst in späterer Zeit.”66 As regards Philippians 1:5, Seesemann then remained consistent with his earlier observations and rendered κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον as “ihr ‘Anteilhaben am Evangelium’,” i.e., “ihre ‘enge Beziehung zum Evangelium’,” while rejecting the more common interpretation of the time, i.e., “‘tatsächliches Gedenken’, d.h. ‘Mitteilsamkeit’.”67 As one can gather from this succinct overview, Seesemann and Campbell arrived at fairly similar deductions concerning the various connotations that κοινων- cognates can acquire – some of the primary sources they cited were actually identical. Seesemann himself recognised this and was pleased that their work converged. He thus found in Campbell’s survey, of which he became aware only after completing his study, “eine 63 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 13, 18–19. It is not entirely clear to us, and to other scholars as well, it seems, what Seesemann had in mind by Mitteilsamkeit. McDermott understood it to mean generosity, while for Panikulam it signified the “action of giving share or contributing to.” Lincoln is probably correct to think Seesemann meant “communicativeness or contribution.” John M. McDermott, “The Biblical Doctrine of ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ,” BZ 19 (1975): 64; George Panikulam, Koinōnia in the New Testament: A Dynamic Expression of Christian Life (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979), 2; Andrew T. Lincoln, “Communion: Some Pauline Foundations,” Ecclesiology 5 (2009): 138. 64 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 42. Cf. ibid., 99: “Nirgends ist uns κοινωνία bei Paulus als ‘Gemeinschaft’ im Sinn von societas = Genossenschaft begegnet.” Hainz claimed to have found the reason for Seesemann’s reluctance: “Die Bedenken gegen das deutsche Wort ‘Gemeinschaft’ sind bei Seesemann begründet in dem zu seiner Zeit dominierenden Verständnis Gemeinschaft = Societas = Genossenschaft, bei dem die gewollte Zusammengehörigkeit Gleichgesinnter im Vordergrund steht und nicht wie im Griechischen das Moment der Teilhabe.” Josef Hainz, “Gemeinschaft (κοινωνία) zwischen Paulus und Jerusalem (Gal 2, 9 f.): Zum paulinischen Verständnis von der Einheit der Kirche,” in Kontinuät und Einheit (eds. P. G. Muller and W. Stenger; Freiburg: Herder, 1981), 35. Cf. Josef Hainz, Koinonia: ‘Kirche’ als Gemeinschaft bei Paulus (Regensburg: Pustet, 1982), 12. 65 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 19, 52. 66 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 42. 67 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 74–75. Like Campbell, Seesemann also considered that Paul had not written ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ὑµῶν or ὑµῶν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου to avoid confusion, although “diese beiden Wendungen für ihn dasselbe ausdrückten.” Cf. Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 80.

Chapter 4: History of Research on Κοινωνία

129

Bestätigung” to his own conclusions.68 In some respect, Seesemann’s survey represents a notable improvement upon Campbell’s work, since he examined a number, albeit a tiny number, of documentary sources.69 In another respect, however, Seesemann’s work falls short of Campbell’s more critical standards insofar as it remains captive to his own theologizing disposition – a propensity which would later become characteristic of the work of G. Kittel et al., which would also have the regrettable tendency of using the term Begriff to speak both of Wort and Idee.70 For instance, although he recognised the secular (profan) origin of κοινωνία, he could not bring himself to consider that Paul could have used the term other than in a religious way. As he noted at first: “Von Interesse ist dabei, daß Paulus für diese Umschreibung [für Glauben; cf. Phil 1:5] das Wort κοινωνία benutzt; ich sehe auch hierin ein Anzeichen dafür, daß das Wort für ihn der profanen Sphäre entnommen ist.”71 He further remarked, “daß der NTliche Gebrauch des Wortes κοινωνία sich im allgemeinen nicht von dem allgemeingriechischen in klassischer wie hellenistischer Zeit unterscheidet.”72 Yet, he still concluded his study by insisting on “[d]ie Tatsache, daß κοινωνία bei Paulus keinmal in einer profanen Bedeutung vorkommt und an einzelnen Stellen neben den religiösen Begriffen χάρις und ἀγάπη offenbar der gleichen Sphäre wie diese angehört.”73 So much so that “κοινωνία für Paulus” is “ein religiöser Terminus.”74 For Seesemann, Paul then represented the “Ausnahme” to the NT rule: “nirgends aber erscheint κοινωνία als spezifisch religiöser Begriff, wie bei Paulus.”75 Not even in later Christian literature is a similar usage ever found: “In der nachpaulinischen christlichen Literatur läßt sich eine ähnliche Verwendung von κοινωνία nicht nachweisen. Der von Paulus geschaffene Gebrauch des Wortes ist nur ihm eigentümlich geblieben.”76 68

Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 2. Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 3, 7–12, 15–22. Cf. his concise index on p. 106. 70 Seesemann’s theological concerns become especially apparent in his discussion of 1 Cor 1:9, 10:16–18, Phil 2:1, or 2 Cor 13:18. See ibid., 34–67. McDermott also recognised Seesemann’s theologizing tendencies, which he explained as follows: “Writing in the halcyon days of enthusiasm for Reitzenstein’s theory of Pauline mystical sacramentalism, Seesemann easily tailored his results to match Reitzenstein’s vision.” McDermott, “ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ,” 64. On the methodological problems associated with the use of Begriff, see Barr, Semantics, 210–11. 71 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 79. 72 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 100. 73 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 99. 74 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 99. Cf. ibid., 68: “Gehört der Begriff κοινωνία somit für Paulus in die religiöse Sphäre, so eignet er sich inhaltlich zur Koordination mit χάρις und αγάπη.” 75 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 100. 76 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 103. 69

130

Part One: Philological Survey

This point alone should make us suspicious of Seesemann’s overall conclusion. Paul’s apparent uniqueness may well be due to Seesemann’s own idiosyncratic interpretation.77 His final explanation as to the reason for this Pauline exception further illustrates the ideological bias(es) of his analysis. Seesemann indeed argued that, contrary to Hellenistic thought in which κοινωνία generally expresses “menschliche Gemeinschaft,” for Paul it could only signify “das Anteilhaben an einem (religiösen) Gut,” because it consists of “eine κοινωνία mit Christus, mit dem heiligen Geist.”78 Such argumentation, however, collapses in the face of Galatians 2:9, Philippians 1:5, or Philemon 17, where menschliche Gemeinschaften are clearly in mind. 4.2.3 Koinoonia en gemeenschap van zaken (P. J. T. Endenburg) Another important survey of the κοινων- word group that ought to receive our careful consideration is P. J. T. Endenburg’s 1937 dissertation. Although his study has been largely overlooked by NT scholars, it is particularly relevant to our work since it treats the possible socio-economic connotation of κοινων- cognates in classical literary sources.79 Initially, Endenburg’s aims were not primarily philological, for he was above all concerned with the socio-legal structure(s) of ancient Greek zakengemeenschappen (i.e., commercial associations).80 These he defined as “een vereeniging van twee of meer personen voor een commercieel doel,”81 i.e., an association or partnership of two or more persons for a commercial purpose (whose duration was variable), which he differentiated from de vereenigingen van vakgenoten, i.e., the professional associations (somewhat anachronistically considered as gilds by a number of scholars at the 77

Seesemann is certainly not unique in this respect. Currie also concluded his study by insisting on a “distinctive Pauline usage.” See Stuart D. Currie, “Koinonia in Christian Literature to 200 A.D.” (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1962), 240. See also Hainz who noted other problematic contradictions in Seesemann’s work. Hainz, Koinonia, 162. 78 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 100–101. 79 Fleury, Sampley, and Peterman, do not include his work in their bibliography, nor is it usually referenced in commentaries on Philippians. Amongst NT scholars, only Hainz and Baumert seem to have been aware of his work, but, surprisingly, the latter does not include it in his list of the four most important studies of κοινωνία in the twentieth century (i.e., he only mentions Campbell, Seesemann, Hainz, and Panikulam). See Hainz, Koinonia, 163 (n. 7), 168 (n. 42); Baumert, Koinonein, 11–14. 80 Pieter J. T. Endenburg, Koinoonia en gemeenschap van zaken bij de Grieken in den klassieken tijd (Amsterdam: H. J. Paris, 1937), xi. 81 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 2. He understood the word vereeniging, i.e., association, as the nomen actionis of the verb vereenigen, i.e., to associate, and thus as equivalent to the German and French terms Vereinigung and société (though not as equivalent to Verein or association, whose duration is considered to be permanent in modern commercial codes). Endenburg, Koinoonia, 7. Cf. ibid., 2.

Chapter 4: History of Research on Κοινωνία

131

time).82 Realising that there existed a diversity of opinions about these zakengemeenschappen, many of which were influenced by modern conceptions on the ancient economy, Endenburg resolved to undertake a more thorough examination of κοινων- cognates, which some scholars had already come to regard as termini technici, in order to understand, from an ancient perspective, their purpose and organisation.83 Ultimately, Endenburg would conclude that, in classical Greece, there existed no definite legal forms of business corporation conferring juristic personality, and that commercial partnerships were never distinguished from more organised forms of business enterprise such as are known to us.84 In fact, there existed no “aparte handelsterminologie,” i.e., no distinct trade terminology, and general terms such as φιλία could easily serve to describe both personal friendships and business relations (“het algemeene woord φιλία omsluit allerlei soorten ‘vriendschap’, ook de ‘zakenvriendschap’”).85 Based on the available evidence, Endenburg would thus propound that the most common kind of ancient zakengemeenschappen corresponded to what Dutch law, up until 1935,86 described as “de handeling voor gemeene rekening” (i.e., a joint-venture), that is, a Gelegenheitsgesellschaft or Spekulationsverein, which was known in Roman law as a societas unius rei,87 whereby two or more persons joined account (“gezamenlijke rekening”) in a temporary and specific business enterprise (though without establishing a proper business entity).88 82

Endenburg, Koinoonia, 3–8. Naturally, Endenburg also excluded “de publiekrechtelijke organisaties als πόλις, φυλή, φρατρία, δῆµος, die toch van politieken en niet van commerdeelen aard zijn” (i.e., the public-legal organisations such as the πόλις, φυλή, φρατρία, δῆµος, which are of a political rather than of a commercial kind). Ibid., 8. 83 Endenburg, Koinoonia, xi, 24. 84 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 200. In other words, partners in a business enterprise could not be liable beyond the capital sum they had invested. Legal business structures such as vennootschap onder firma (i.e., offene Handelsgesellschaft/ general partnership), commanditaire vennootschap (i.e., Kommanditgesellschaft/limited liability partnership), and naamlooze vennootschap (i.e., Aktiengesellschaft/limited liability company), remained unknown to the ancient Greeks. Endenburg, Koinoonia, 160–62, 200. For Dutch legal terminology see Tony Foster, Dutch Legal Terminology in English (rev. and enl. ed.; Deventer: Kluwer, 2009). 85 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 97. 86 This legal category became redundant and was eventually deleted from Dutch law since de handeling voor gemeene rekening, i.e., a joint-venture, was in practice regarded as maatschappij, i.e., a company. Endenburg, Koinoonia, 162 (n. 1). 87 As a rule, however, the handeling voor gemeene rekening could last longer than a societas unius rei. Endenburg, Koinoonia, 162 (n. 2). 88 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 162. This form of zakengemeenschap was probably preferred because it greatly reduced the risk of losses and did not require substantial capital to be invested. Ibid., 200.

132

Part One: Philological Survey

Beginning with the customary review of the status quaestionis in contemporary scholarship, Endenburg initially highlighted the wide recognition amongst historians of the existence of various forms of partnerships, albeit primitive ones, in maritime trade, mining, banking, and tax-farming.89 As several scholars had already noted, these are well-attested in literary sources and are often designated as κοινωνίαι (e.g., συµπλοικὴ κ., χρηµάτων κ., µετάλλου κ.).90 Demosthenes’ speeches in particular represent a rich source of information on partnerships between ναύκληροι and financiers (e.g., Or. 32, 34, 35, 56), amongst τραπεζῖται (e.g., Or. 37, 43), or between mine concessionaires (Or. 37, 42).91 Likewise, Aristotle mentions on several occasions various kinds of κοινωνίαι amongst travellers or soldiers (Eth. nic. 1159b 29, 1160a 9, 17), between sailors (πρὸς ἐργασίαν χρηµάτων, Eth. nic. 1160a 16; cf. Eth. nic. 1159b 29, 1161b 11), or simply amongst people pursuing some economic profit (χρηµατιστικαὶ κ., Eth. eud. 1241b 27).92 Endenburg’s review also drew attention to the persistent disagreements in scholarship as to the legal and economic structure of these companies, their durability, and the size and influence of their operations.93 Wishing to distance himself from what he thought were deficient, anachronistic methodologies, Endenburg thus decided to focus

89 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 9–23. For a detailed discussion of each of these partnerships see ibid., 160–99. For a sample of the various opinions at the time see Georges Perrot, “Le commerce de l’argent et le crédit à Athènes,” in Mémoires d’archéologie, d’épigraphie et d’histoire (Paris: Didier, 1875), 354–55; Victor Brants, “Les sociétés commerciales à Athènes: Contribution à l’histoire du capital dans la Grèce antique,” Revue de l’instruction publique en Belgique 25 (1882), 109–25; Gustav Schmoller, “Die Handelsgesellschaften des Altertums,” Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft 16 (1892): 87–104; Beauchet, Histoire, 4:340–54, 367–71; Henri Francotte, L’industrie dans la Grèce ancienne (vol. 2; Bruxelles: Société Belge de Librairie, 1901), 199–204; Justus H. Lipsius, Das Attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren unter Benutzung des Attischen Prozesses (Leipzig: O. R. Reisland, 1915), 767–69; Fritz Gerlich, Geschichte und Theorie des Kapitalismus (Munich: Duncker & Humblot, 1913), 170–72; Gustav Glotz, Le travail dans la Grèce ancienne: Histoire économique de la Grèce depuis la période homérique jusqu’à la conquête romaine (Paris: Librairie F. Alcan, 1920), 359–61; Johannes Hasebroek, Staat und Handel im alten Griechenland: Untersuchungen zur antiken Wirtschaftsgeschichte (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1928), 88; Adolf Menzel, Griechische Soziologie (Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1936), 109–10. 90 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 15, 19. 91 See his discussion in Endenburg, Koinoonia, 167–87. 92 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 163–64. 93 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 9–23. Understandably, debates revolved around the perennial question of how primitive, or how evolved, the ancient economy was.

Chapter 4: History of Research on Κοινωνία

133

on the primary sources and undertook an extensive and rigorous philological survey of κοινων- cognates in classical literature.94 Following Aristotle’s definition of κοινωνός in Pol. 1328a 26,95 Endenburg initially considered κοινωνοί as consisting of persons having something in common,96 though he admitted that in many cases what is held in common, het gemeenschappelijke, is no longer in view so that the term may simply refer to a genoot (mate), a helper (assistant), or a vriend (friend), what in Latin might be designated as a comes.97 Like his predecessors, he noted that the thing being shared is usually indicated by a partitive genitive, though occasionally by a prepositional phrase, when it is not altogether omitted.98 In contrast with Campbell and Seesemann (and later Baumert), Endenburg placed more emphasis on the context, rather than on syntagmatics (i.e., syntactical relationships between linguistic units), to determine the various semantic nuances κοινωνός may assume. In total, he identified several possible connotations, which testify to the term’s versatility: 1) companion, life-partner (e.g., κ. τοῦ βίου/ τῶν γάµων/ τῆς τύχης);99 2) participant or member of the civic community or government, whatever its form (e.g., κ. τῶν πολιτειῶν/ ἀρχῶν/ πραγµάτων);100 3) participant in religious ceremonies (e.g., κ. τῶν ἱερῶν);101 4) fellow worker or assistant, in a general sense (e.g., κ. τῶν πραγµάτων/ πόνων/ ἀναλωµάτων/ τῆς πράξεως/ τοῦ πολέµου);102 5) partner in crime, accomplice (e.g., κ. τῶν κακῶν/ ἀδικηµάτων/ τῆς ἁµαρτίας; cf. Matt 23:30);103 joint94 Given the abundance of material available and the limited scope of his dissertation, Endenburg deliberately refrained from examining any literary or documentary sources postdating Aristotle (except when there existed examples that could provide supporting evidence of rare forms derived from κοινωνός, or to illustrate additional senses of κοινωνός, κοινωνέω, and κοινωνία, in the post-classical period). Endenburg, Koinoonia, xi. 95 Pol. 1328a 26: ἓν γάρ τι καὶ κοινὸν εἶναι δεῖ καὶ ταὐτὸ τοῖς κοινωνοῖς, ἄν τε ἴσον ἄν τε ἄνισον µεταλαµβάνωσιν (i.e., for there must be something that is one, and common, and the same for the partners, whether they share equal or unequal portions). 96 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 26: “M.a.w. κοινωνοί zijn lieden die κοινόν τι bezitten” (i.e., in other words, κοινωνοί are people who possess κοινόν τι). 97 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 26–27. 98 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 27. 99 I.e., “Levensgezel, lotgenoot.” This sense does not solely apply to married life (cf. Aristotle, Pol. 1260a 40: ὁ … δοῦλος κοινωνός ζωῆς [τοῦ δεσπότου]). Endenburg, Koinoonia, 27–28. 100 I.e., “Lid van de staatsgemeenschap, deelnemer aan het staatsbestuur, deelgenoot aan de heerschappij.” This participation would take place in the form of attendance at the assembly and accession to archonships or other offices. Endenburg, Koinoonia, 28–31. 101 I.e., “Deelgenoot aan godsdienstigeplechtigheden, medevereerder.” Endenburg, Koinoonia, 32–35. 102 I.e., “Medebeoefenaar, medewerker, helper.” Endenburg, Koinoonia, 35–38. 103 I.e., “Medewerker in malam partem: handlanger, medeplichtige.” Endenburg, Koinoonia, 38. The Latin word socius is also observed to have this sense in legal sources.

134

Part One: Philological Survey

owner (e.g., κ. τῶν χρηµάτων/ παίδων/ τοῦ οἴκου);104 7) conversation partner, intellectual peer (e.g., κ. τῶν λόγων/ τῆς ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ διατριβῆς);105 8) relative, friend, comrade (e.g., κ. τῇ τῶν πατέρων φύσει/ τῆς µάχης);106 9) sharer;107 10) business friend or associate – regardless of the nature of the partnership (e.g., κ. τοῦ δανείσµατος – most often κοινωνός tout court).108 He also noted the use of the compound συγκοινωνός in the NT, such as in Philippians 1:7, which he translated as mededeelachtig/ medegenoot, i.e., joint-associate/ partner.109 Finally, he observed that, in many cases, κοινωνός simply has the sense of σύµµαχος, συνεργός, παραστάτης, συλλήπτωρ, βοηθός, or διάκονος,110 while in business contexts it usually designates a partner or associate in a trade of some sort.111 In agreement with Campbell,112 Endenburg defined κοινωνέω as to be a κοινωνός (on the basis of its verbal form -έω, which, according to R. Kühner and F. Blass, usually denotes a condition or state).113 He noted several possible nuances of the verb κοινωνέω, which correspond, in verbal form, to those observed for κοινωνός. He also suggested that when the dative of person and the partitive genitive were missing, it could then become synonymous with ἔχω – a conclusion seemingly not reached by any of his predecessors.114 Since he presented the evidence according to the same classification introduced in his section on κοινωνός, we shall restrict ourselves to those instances that are most relevant to our study, that is, when κοινωνέω denotes business association. Endenburg perceived that Aristotle See Raoul Balougdgitch, Étude sur la complicité en droit pénal romain (Montpellier: L’abeille, 1920), 37–41; Karl Poetzsch, Der Begriff und die Bedeutung des socius im römischen Strafrecht (Düsseldorf: G. H. Nolte, 1934); I. Pfaff, “Socius,” PW[2] 5:782– 84. 104 I.e., “Medebezitter.” Endenburg, Koinoonia, 39. 105 I.e., “Deelnemer aan gesprek, beraadslaging, philosophisch onderzoek, deelgenoot van dezelfde meening, – opleiding.” Endenburg, Koinoonia, 41–42. 106 I.e., “Verwant, vriend, kameraad; in den pluralis ‘omgeving’.” Endenburg, Koinoonia, 42–43. 107 I.e., “Deelgever.” Endenburg, Koinoonia, 43. 108 I.e., “Κοινωνός in commercieel verband.” Endenburg, Koinoonia, 45–46. Cf. ibid., 167–78, 183–87. Note: we omit from this list the two groups which deal with the Doric and Ionic forms ξυνάων, ξυνήων, and ξυνέων, as well as other cognates such as ἐπικοινωνός, κοινωνικός, ἀκοινώνητος, δυσκοινώνητος, εὐκοινώνητος, and ἀξιοκοινώνητος, which are not immediately relevant to our investigation. See ibid., 44–61. 109 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 105. 110 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 37–38. 111 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 45. 112 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 355. 113 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 62 114 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 90–95. He also treated the terms ἐπικοινωνεῖν, κατακοινωνεῖν, προσκοινωνεῖν, and συγκοινωνεῖν, which, except for the last one, do not appear in the NT. Endenburg, Koinoonia, 98–105.

Chapter 4: History of Research on Κοινωνία

135

uses κοινωνέω once in the sense of συναλλάσσω (Eth. nic. 1164b.15), and, along with Plato (Resp. 343d and 362b), employs it once to indicate een verbintenis aangaan or handel drijven (Pol. 1275a 10), i.e., to enter into a relationship or to do business (thus in a sense quite similar to ξυµβάλλω, just as ξυµβόλαιον and κοινώνηµα are approximately synonymous and designate business contracts or partnerships in Resp. 333a–c).115 He further observed that in five other instances (Aristotle, Pol. 1280b 22, 1328b 6– 24; Xenophon, Mem. 2.6.23; Demosthenes, Or. 37.10, 38), κοινωνέω denotes cooperation and partnership in financial matters. In the context of Demosthenes’ speech in particular, it clearly refers to a commercial partnership for the joint-exploitation of mines.116 Accepting Kühner and Blass’ explanation of the abstractiveness of nouns bearing the suffix -ία, Endenburg defined κοινωνία as “deelgenootschap, deelhebberschap, gemeenschap,” i.e., partnership/ association, participation, community.117 As with κοινωνέω, he differentiated the various senses of κοινωνία according to the same classification established for κοινωνός. Here again, we may focus on the examples in which κοινωνία is used to describe business association.118 One such instance is the well-known passage wherein, discussing inequality in friendship, Aristotle refers to a χρηµάτων κοινωνία between associates (whereby he who contributes more capital expects to obtain a greater share of the profits; Eth. nic. 1163a 31). Endenburg also noted other (less explicit) examples in which, despite the absence of a partitive genitive, κοινωνία seems to indicate business cooperation. For instance, in his defence of the two cousins of a deceased mercenary named Nicostratus, the advocate Isaeus objects to the claims of a certain Chariades, a fellow soldier of Nicostratus, that the two had formed a κοινωνία and that the former was entitled to inherit the latter’s estate (Isaeus, Or. 4.26).119 Here, however, due to the lack of contextual information, Endenburg was at pains to determine with certainty the exact nature of what seemed to consist of a “zakelijke relatie,” i.e., a business relation, which, he surmised, may have related to a maritime loan (ναυτικὸν δάνεισµα).120 Similarly, in the expression ἐν τῇ διαλύσει τῆς κοινωνίας in 115

Endenburg, Koinoonia, 97. Endenburg, Koinoonia, 97–98. Cf. ibid., 65, 70, 188. 117 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 105. 118 As with κοινωνός and κοινωνέω, we shall also leave out other derived forms of κοινωνία, such as κοινώνηµα, κοινώµησις, ἐπικοινωνία, ἀκοινωνία, ἀκοινωνησία, εὐκοινωνησία. Cf. Endenburg, Koinoonia, 149–59. 119 Note: it is unlikely that the deliverer of the speech was Isaeus himself. Cf. E. S. Forster, Isaeus (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962), 128–29. 120 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 146–47. The background of this ἐπίλογος (supplementary speech) is not entirely clear. The κοινωνία alluded to may have been referred to in an earlier, but now lost, oration. 116

136

Part One: Philological Survey

Plato’s Resp. 343d, Endenburg found κοινωνία to refer to a handelstransactie, i.e., a business deal, κοινωνία being here synonymous with ξυµβόλαιον (or συµβόλαιον), i.e., a contract, covenant, bond (cf. Eth. nic. 1164b 15).121 Finally, he observed a similar commercial connotation in additional passages by Plato (Leg. 632b, 861e),122 and Aristotle (Eth. nic. 1132b 31, 1133a 17, 1133b 15–17), in which κοινωνία is repeatedly associated with ἀλλαγή (i.e., exchange) to describe the possible exchange of services, commercial commodities, and money, taking place between a physician and a farmer, or between a builder and a shoemaker (cf. Pol. 1280b 22).123 This brief overview should be sufficient to highlight that, although it has been almost completely overlooked by NT scholars, Endenburg’s contribution is particularly valuable. Its systematic and comprehensive treatment of primary sources, as well as his sound philological method, certainly make it one of the best philological studies of κοινων- cognates ever produced. To date, Endenburg remains in fact the only scholar who has sought to document meticulously their possible economic connotations, which, one would think, could potentially be relevant to certain NT texts. One may only regret that his study has not received the attention and credit it deserves from NT scholars, and that Endenburg paid so little attention to documentary sources, to which, to be fair, he could have only had a limited access in the late 1930s.124 4.2.4 Koinonein und Metechein (N. Baumert) One last, and most recently published (2003), philological study is that of N. Baumert, who undertook a comprehensive re-examination of the linguistic evidence relating to κοινων- cognates, and who sought to reassess the possible synonymity of κοινωνέω and µετέχω (a verb used five times in 1 Cor 9–10; cf. µετοχή, 2 Cor 6:14). Baumert was indeed puzzled that, despite their unrelated etymological Herkunft, the two verbs have often been presented as somewhat synonymous in lexica and NT literature.125 To clarify the semantic relationship between the two, he resolved to conduct, as 121

Endenburg, Koinoonia, 147–48. Cf. LSJ, s.v. συµβόλαιον. The context is rather vague, but Endenburg argued “dat het word βλάβαι in commercieele richting wijst: de menschen benadeelen immers elkaar het meest op financieel gebied” (i.e., that the word βλάβαι points in a commercial direction: people indeed injure each other the most in financial matters). Endenburg, Koinoonia, 149. 123 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 148–49. 124 His index of documentary sources includes eight inscriptions and a single papyrus, the famous revenue laws of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (P.Rev.). Cf. Endenburg, Koinoonia, 218. 125 Baumert, Koinonein, 11. 122

Chapter 4: History of Research on Κοινωνία

137

his subtitle indicates, eine umfassende semantische Untersuchung of literary sources ranging from the Classical to the early Byzantine eras (ca. A.D. VII). Noting some of the theological (or otherwise) preconceptions of his predecessors J. Y. Campbell, H. Seesemann, G. Panikulam, and J. Hainz, who produced what he deemed to constitute the four most important studies on κοινωνία in the twentieth-century,126 Baumert purported to examine first and foremost “semantisch[e] Fragen” in the light of syntagmatics, that is, to determine the Bedeutung of κοινων- cognates within a variety of syntactical constructions.127 Then, and only then, did he seek to investigate potential “theologische Implikationen” pertinent to “Ekklesiologie und Eucharistielehre” in a final eighth chapter.128 This deliberate refocus and shift away from theological considerations on to semantic questions is a welcome development in the history of scholarship, which, along its comprehensive treatment of literary sources, makes Baumert’s study stand out from earlier attempts (which we shall review in our section 4.3). As with the studies previously reviewed, for the sake of conciseness we shall mainly restrict ourselves to points that are of immediate interest to our investigation. To begin with, Baumert set out to examine the verb µετέχω and its derivatives (µετοχή, µέτοχος), which he basically defined as mithaben/ teilhaben.129 He then proceeded to reconsider NT passages in which one of these cognates appear (e.g., 1 Cor 9:10–12; Heb 5:13, 7:13).130 This initial succinct study set the stage for a later fifth chapter in which he analysed ambiguous literary excerpts from Plato, Xenophon, and Plutarch, amongst others, that could suggest that µετέχω and κοινωνέω (and their respective cognates) were “praktisch synonym,”131 a common view which he consistently questioned and eventually refuted. For, as he came to conclude: “In all diesen Texten, in denen Derivate von κοινων- und µετεχ- nebeneinander vorkommen, haben sie niemals, wie Campbell sagt (355), die gleiche Bedeutung, selbst da nicht, wo sie sich mit der gleichen Sachfrage befassen.”132 For Paul, he would contend, it is “das Element ‘Gemein126 Baumert, Koinonein, 11–12. It is difficult to see which (theological?) Vorverständnis Baumert identified in Campbell’s work. He seems to be referring to his partial presentation of the evidence surveyed: “Interessant ist, daß hier aufgrund eines reichen Materials, das freilich nur zum geringsten Teil vorgestellt wird, ‘Ergebnisse’ vorgelegt werden. Selbstverständlich geht C. von einem bestimmten Vorverständnis der Texte aus” (p. 11). 127 Baumert, Koinonein, 12. 128 Baumert, Koinonein, 12. Cf. ibid., 499–526. 129 Baumert, Koinonein, 15–20. Cf. ibid., 305–306. 130 Baumert, Koinonein, 15–34. 131 Baumert, Koinonein, 275. 132 Baumert, Koinonein, 304.

138

Part One: Philological Survey

samkeit’” that forms the “Grundbestand der Wortbedeutung” of κοινωνcognates.133 Baumert then turned his attention to the substantive κοινωνός, which, following J. B. Hofmann’s etymological lead, he related to the “Wurzel κοινός.”134 While he conceded that the generally accepted meaning of the adjective κοινός is gemeinsam or öffentlich, he suggested that it should be understood to mean, at its most basic lexical level, “mit-gehend.”135 Thus he deduced that κοινωνός, as a nominal derivative of κοινός, “ist somit ursprünglich der ‘Mit-geher’, und dann Gefährte, Kollege, Genosse, auch verbunden mit φίλος … , während ‘Teilhaber’, was Seesemann (19) ‘in erster Linie’ als Bedeutung angibt, erst zu rechtfertigen wäre.”136 Thereby Baumert argued that κοινωνός inherently places emphasis on the relationship implicitly or explicitly binding two (or more) persons, rather than on an object which might be shared or partaken of in common: “Immer ist die Beziehung zwischen zwei Personen (-gruppen) das primäre Element.”137 Upon completing his survey, he then concluded that: “Die Gemeinsamkeit ist das Grundlegende, und dieses Element hält überall durch, während ‘Teilhabe’ nirgends nötig ist und oft sogar empfindlich stört.”138 With respect to Philippians 1:7, he thus understood the reference συγκοινωνούς µου τῆς χάριτος to signify that the Philippians had joined with Paul in his imprisonment through their remembrance, intercession, and the dispatch of Epaphroditus with a gift, and not that they had received a share of his grace, a “‘Teil’ von seiner Gnade.”139 In this sense, the Genitiv der Sache τῆς χάριτος represents “die Rücksicht, unter der sie seine Gefährten sind,” and not “das Objekt einer Teilhabe.”140 Next, he focused on the verb κοινωνέω, which he defined as “verbunden sein.”141 He strongly criticized Seesemann’s (influential) claim that the Ursprüngliche (of κοινωνέω) means Anteil haben/teilhaben, though he agreed that it could connote, by derivation, Gemeinschaft haben/ sich anschließen.142 As regards Philippians 4:15, however, Baumert found 133

Baumert, Koinonein, 526. Baumert, Koinonein, 36. 135 Baumert, Koinonein, 36–37. 136 Baumert, Koinonein, 37. 137 Baumert, Koinonein, 40. 138 Baumert, Koinonein, 126. 139 Baumert, Koinonein, 109–110. 140 Baumert, Koinonein, 109. 141 Baumert, Koinonein, 46. Cf. ibid., 307–309. 142 Baumert, Koinonein, 46. Baumert in fact proceeded to undermine thoroughly Seesemann’s understanding of κοινωνέω as Anteil haben/teilhaben (and κοινωνός as Teilhaber) throughout the rest of his work. See for instance Baumert, Koinonein, 35, 43–47, 52–57, 70–72 (passim). 134

Chapter 4: History of Research on Κοινωνία

139

Luther’s rendering keine Gemeinde mit mir Gemeinschaft (im Geben und Nehmen) haben to be more appropriate than the translation mit keiner Gemeinde (durch Geben und Nehmen) verbunden sein, since “Subjekt und somit Ausgangspunkt des Denkens die ‘Versammlung’ ist.”143 Thus, he rejected the idea of participation or sharing as applicable here, stressing that “die Gemeinde war ihm verbunden und hatte nicht etwa ‘Anteil’ (woran?) auf den Titel von Geben und Nehmen.”144 Unlike Campbell, who considered it as equivalent to a partitive genitive, he suggested that the merkwürdig prepositional phrase εἰς λόγον was used in this instance in lieu of a genitivus relationis.145 As one might have expected, Baumert dedicated the greatest part of his work to the substantive κοινωνία, whose meaning he separated into two Hauptbedeutungen, both of which, he argued, could be further subdivided into a nomen actionis (n.a.), i.e., an abstract sense, and a nomen rei actae (n.r.), i.e., a concrete sense: 1) Gemeinschaft (n.a.: Gemeinsamkeit, Miteinander, etc.; n.r.: Vereinigung, Verbindung, etc.); 2) Mitteilung (n.a.: “das Mitteilen als Akt”, etc.; n.r.: das Mitgeteilte, “die konkrete Gabe,” etc.).146 Once more, his aim was partly to disprove the views of Seesemann and Campbell that Teilnahme/Teilhabe or participation/sharing are adequate translations of κοινωνία,147 and to demonstrate, through a meticulous analysis of a wide range of literary sources, that κοινωνία most often expresses a Beziehung (or Gemeinsamkeit/Gemeinschaft) miteinander with respect to, or in reference to, something which is usually indicated by a genitive.148 Applying this understanding to Philippians 1:5, Baumert thus rejected Seesemann and Campbell’s interpretations and proposed that the prepositional phrase εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, much like a genitivus relationis, and not unlike εἰς λόγον in Philippians 4:15, served as a point of reference to the Gemeinschaft uniting Paul and the Philippians.149 Judiciously, Baumert also included a short section on the use of κοινωνcognates in Geschäftssprache and Rechtssprache.150 Although he examined only a limited amount of literary and documentary materials, he was perceptive enough to notice that κοινωνία could denote “die Verbindung oder Beziehung … , die bei jedem Handel entsteht und die nach Durchführung des Geschäfts wieder aufhört.”151 He also observed that κοινων- cognates 143

Baumert, Baumert, 145 Baumert, 146 Baumert, 147 Baumert, 148 Baumert, 149 Baumert, 150 Baumert, 151 Baumert, 144

Koinonein, 55. Koinonein, 55. Koinonein, 55–56. Cf. Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 369. Koinonein, 141. Koinonein, 141–43. Cf. Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 12. Koinonein, 141, 153, 169–70, 188–89. Koinonein, 191, 200–202. Koinonein, 257–74. Koinonein, 258.

140

Part One: Philological Survey

could be employed in a more technical manner: “Im Rahmen einer entwickelten Fachsprache kann κ. dann regelrecht ‘Vereinbarung, Vertrag’ heißen … Dem entsprechend wäre κοινωνός dann Vertragspartner (als Gegenüber).”152 With respect to the expression κατὰ κοινωνίαν (τινος), which, as we shall see, is frequently used in papyri to refer to a piece of property that is owned or leased in common, he deduced that the sense “in Mitinhaberschaft”/ “unter Besitzbeteiligung,” or “in Mietergemeinschaft,” was most likely intended – a conclusion with which we shall later concur.153 While he maintained that this meaning did not constitute the Grundbedeutung of κοινωνία and, by extension, of κοινωνός, he recognised that their regular occurrence in such contexts contributed to the progressive development of a more technical contextual usage in Geschäfts- and Rechtssprache, one which would justify the translation “Teilhaber/schaft.”154 Concerning Philippians 4:15, Baumert thus deduced that κοινωνέω most likely had “geschäftliche Konnotationen.”155 Overall, Baumert’s volume represents an important contribution to the study of κοινων- cognates. As we have already remarked, it signals a welcome development in terms of methodology and a notable departure from the theological preconceptions that have held captive many of his predecessors, whom we shall review in the next section. His efforts to focus on Wortsemantik, and his determination to identify Bedeutungs-elemente associated with particular syntactical constructions, are especially commendable and prove to be productive and insightful. Most important perhaps is his critical revision of (much of) Seesemann’s work, which has (regrettably) been greatly influential in German scholarship (despite the dubiousness of some of its conclusions, as we have seen). His many corrections have in fact long been overdue and should enable future scholars to build their work on much sounder foundations. It is certainly hoped that it will contribute to rescue Paul’s usage of κοινων- cognates from its alleged religious specificity, for, as Baumert rightly remarked in his conclusion, κοινωνία is “kein paulinischer Fachausdruck.”156 Some of these philological findings will also be important to keep in mind as we conduct our survey of the documentary sources, which in many respects will confirm Baumert’s deductions, as well as when we approach Paul’s letter to the Philippians, in which, we shall argue, the notion of Beziehung miteinander makes the most sense of Paul’s reference to his κοινωνία with the Macedonian community. 152

Baumert, Baumert, 154 Baumert, 155 Baumert, 156 Baumert, 153

Koinonein, 258. Koinonein, 261–62. Koinonein, 261. Cf. ibid., 264–66. Koinonein, 274. Koinonein, 526.

Chapter 4: History of Research on Κοινωνία

141

This being said, one may still regret Baumert’s methodological rigidity as to the definiteness of syntagmatics over context and stylistic variation in the determination of meaning.157 One indeed wonders whether his sole focus on Grundbedeutung and syntactical constructions, and his eagerness to undermine Seesemann’s conclusions, have not sometimes caused him to lose sight of the contextual semantic malleability of κοινων- cognates. This is well illustrated by his treatment of BGU III 969 (A.D. 142), the memorandum of a judge which makes mention of several persons associated in a cattle-rearing business (or some liturgy perhaps): ἀπηλλάγησαν µὲν οὖν οἱ ἀντίδικοι τῆς κτηνοτροφία[ς] ἧς ἐκοινώνουν τῷ τετελευτηκότι (ll. 11–13).158 Baumert insisted that κοινωνέω here places emphasis on the relational connection of the defendants with the deceased (“sie verbunden waren dem Verstorbenen”), and not on the fact that they actually participated (or had a share) in the cattle-rearing activities (“Nicht aber, ‘an der sie [mit?] dem Verstorbenen teilhatten’”), or that they jointly operated the business (“die [?] sie gemeinschaftlich betrieben”).159 While this observation may be true at a purely semantic level, any Verbund between the parties would have implied, from a practical economic point of view, a joint-administration of the business (or liturgy) in question. In fact, such Verbund might have been solely motivated by a desire, or need, to cooperate in the running of the cattle-rearing enterprise. In this sense, then, Anteil haben, i.e., to have a share in the business (in the form of a concrete participation in its benefits, expenses, and operations), is a direct consequence of being in Gemeinschaft.160 A similar observation could be made regarding Baumert’s discussion of CIG 3916 (= IHierapJ 336),161 the epitaph of a gladiator, which contains an injunction against the misappropriation of his sarcophagus (which was of moderate size): ἕτ(ερον) οὐκ [ἐξ]ὸν (κ)ηδεῦσα(ι) … οὐδ(ὲ) µετα[κ]ει(ν)ήσει τις ταύτην | τὴν σορόν … οὐ[δ]ὲ κοινωνείσει πρός τινα κτλ. (ll. 6– 10).162 Baumert criticized Seesemann for translating the last clause as

157 Although he does recognise that “einzelne Autoren bestimmte Vorlieben [haben]” vis-à-vis their use of κοινωνός. Baumert, Koinonein, 321. 158 I.e., so the defendants were freed from the cattle-rearing which they shared with the deceased. Baumert, Koinonein, 71–72, 94. The document is discussed in details in Llewelyn, NewDocs 8, 87–90, #5. See our discussion in the next chapter and the relevant entry in appendix B. 159 Baumert, Koinonein, 94. 160 A similar critique could be raised concerning his treatment of the sense of κοινωνέω in P.Rev. See Baumert, Koinonein, 137. 161 See our discussion in the next chapter and the relevant entry in appendix A. 162 I.e., it is not permitted to bury someone else (in this sarcophagus) … nor shall anyone move this sarcophagus … (or) share (it) with someone etc. A picture of the sarcopha-

142

Part One: Philological Survey

“noch jemandem (an ihm) Anteil geben,”163 remarking (in relative ignorance of ancient burial practices, it seems) that it was simply not possible to give a share of a tomb (“Aber wie kann man ‘an einem Sarg Anteil geben’?”).164 Instead, he argued that the inscription prohibits one from turning the sarcophagus into a communal tomb: “Er soll (den Sarg) nicht gemeinsam machen auf jemanden hin/mit jemanden. Das meint offensichtlich, daß man nicht später einen anderen Toten hineinlegen darf … Doch heißt κοινωνεῖν deshalb nicht ‘teilen’!”165 Whilst here again Baumert’s remark may be justified at a semantic level, letting a corpse be buried in the sarcophagus would have equated, from a purely pragmatic point of view, to sharing the tomb or to giving a share of it to someone, which, as we shall later see, was not at all uncommon in antiquity. In other words, while the basic lexical meaning of the verb remains gemeinsam machen, in context its pragmatic connotation amounts to Anteil haben/geben, i.e., have/give a share. Baumert’s lack of consideration for the pragmatic, socio-economic dimension of language is further made evident when, accepting F. Preisigke’s explanation that “κοινωνία [kann] offensichtlich einen (Pacht) Vertrag bezeichnen,” he suggested that a lease contract did not make someone a partner or an associate but merely formalised the agreement: “Doch bei einem Pachtvertrag wird man nicht ‘Teilhaber’, sondern kommt mit dem Besitzer überein = trifft eine ‘Vereinbarung’.”166 In his view, the lessee thus merely remains the Vertragspartner of the Verpächter.167 One could see why a fastidious linguist might wish to press the point, but one is simply at a loss to grasp the nuance and distinction Baumert introduces between a Teilhaber and a Vertragspartner, which in the light of ancient economic practices seems unjustified, and which, as he himself would eventually come to realise, would have been lost on many Koine speakers.168 Herein Baumert rather appears to misunderstand altogether the practical socio-economic aims of Pachtverträgen. As we shall see in our survey of the documentary evidence, such contracts or agreements almost always entitled the contracting parties to a share of the responsibilities and benefits, just as in modern-day partnerships. Overall, it is difficult to escape the impression that, for some reason that escapes us, Baumert himself succumbed to his own ideological prejudices and resisted the idea that κοινωνgus is included in Tullia Ritti and Salim Yilmaz, “Gladiatori e venationes a Hierapolis di Frigia,” MAL 10 (1998): 528–30, #22. 163 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 7. 164 Baumert, Koinonein, 136. 165 Baumert, Koinonein, 136–37. 166 Baumert, Koinonein, 198. 167 Baumert, Koinonein, 258. 168 Baumert, Koinonein, 265.

Chapter 4: History of Research on Κοινωνία

143

cognates could have more practical socio-economic and political implications, which may explain his very selective use of documentary sources.169 These few observations also further highlight the crucial need to pay attention to the pragmatic function of a cognate within a particular context in order to appreciate its significance, a point which Baumert eventually admitted, though perhaps a little too late, in his final reflection upon the semantic developments of κοινων- cognates.170 Finally, one last criticism ought to be raised against Baumert’s very limited survey of documentary evidence, which undermines his claim to have conducted eine umfassende Untersuchung. While he does show a certain awareness of papyrological materials throughout his work, his treatment is anything but exhaustive and is hardly representative of the available evidence. His index of documentary sources, which holds within half a page, mostly contains references to papyri (27) and a handful of inscriptions (10), most of which were already adduced by Seesemann, Preisigke, or referenced in LSJ, MM, and BDAG.171 In fact, it seems that Baumert did not seek to discover and analyse new evidence, but mainly restricted himself to discussing the examples already known to most and to challenging commonly-accepted interpretations. His section on κοινων- cognates in Geschäftssprache and Rechtssprache is in this regard most disappointing as it features only sixteen papyri and a single inscription (in addition to two well-known passages, i.e., Plato’s Resp. 343d and Leviticus 6:2).172 This neglect of documentary evidence is all the more prejudicial since, contrary to his predecessors, Baumert would have had access to a large amount of documentary materials. As one can easily appreciate, a comprehensive survey of the documentary sources thus remains a highly desirable undertaking.

169

Alternatively, his reluctance may have to do with his (theologically-motivated) agenda to undermine the common assumption that κοινων- cognates could denote participation and sharing, and thereby be synonymous with µετέχω and its cognates. 170 Baumert, Koinonein, 321–22. 171 Baumert, Koinonein, 554. Baumert’s index actually contains a few mistakes: BGU 919 should be read as BGU III 969, PLond 166 as P.Lond. V 1660, POxy 1624 as P.Oxy. XIV 1642. SIG 300 (2nd ed.) is the same inscription as SIG 474 (cf. p. 190) and SIG 646 (3rd ed.), and is referenced in our appendix A as IG VII 2225. BGU IV 1037 found on p. 266 could have also been added to the list. 172 I.e., SIG 646 (referenced as SIG2 300); P.Lips I 6 & 10; P.Lond. III 994 & 1023; P.Oxy. XIV 1642 R (mis-referenced as P.Oxy. 1624); P.Flor. I 13; P.Oxf. 16; P.Lond. II 311; P.Oxy. I 103; BGU II 586; P.Flor. III 370; P.Tebt. I 5 (κοινωνικά, l. 59); BGU IV 1037 (κοινωνικός, l. 14); P.Giss. I 30 (κοινωνικός, l. 7); P.Oxy. III 490 (κοινωνικός, l. 5). All of which are found in our appendix B (except for P.Tebt. I 5; BGU IV 1037; P.Giss. I 30; P.Oxy. III 490).

144

Part One: Philological Survey

4.3 Theologically-Oriented Studies Understandably, the term κοινωνία, and the concept(s) it might have evoked, have also generated significant interest amongst biblical and systematic theologians, who have been keen to explore its potential sociological and theological dimension(s).173 Such research has often been achieved with a view to extract from the NT ecclesiological and pastoral precepts that could be applied to modern ecclesiastical contexts, or even to develop a “theology of κοινωνία.”174 To the best of our knowledge, the earliest example of such studies in the twentieth-century appears to have been a 1932 dissertation in Afrikaans by E. P. Groenewald, Κοινωνία (Gemeenskap) bij Paulus (vidi sed non intellegi), which has unfortunately never been translated in a language that most scholars could read.175 It was followed some thirty years later by a study by S. D. Currie, who, heeding Seesemann’s remark that a rationale for Paul’s “distinctive and singular” use of κοινωνία had yet to be articulated,176 undertook to examine all occurrences of the term in Christian literature prior to A.D. II. Currie would conclude that the “full explanation of Paul’s use of koinonia and its cognates lies beyond their linguistic powers and proprieties.”177 Indeed, he contended that “it was in fact a sense of the inadequacy of the Septuagint’s rendering of ḥesed which led Paul to adopt koinonia and its cognates as vehicles suitable for expressing the claims of the alliance in Christ”178 – an explanation which J. Hainz would later qualify, rather appositely, as “phantasievoll.”179 P. C. Bori, on the other hand, intended his 1972 study to be a critique of the modern credo “la Chiesa è una comunione,”180 which, he argued, was in dissonance with the NT understanding of comunione, i.e., κοινωνία. Placing “la massima importanza al contesto letterario e teologico,” Bori endeav173

A good summary of the history of research on this topic is found in Hainz, Koinonia, 162–205. For a review of more recent works, see Lincoln, “Communion,” 135–60. 174 Lincoln, “Communion,” 136. 175 Evert P. Groenewald, Κοινωνία (Gemeenskap) bij Paulus (Delft: W. D. Meinema, 1932). 176 Currie, Koinonia, iv. 177 Currie, Koinonia, 14. 178 Currie, Koinonia, 29. Currie further explained: “This does not mean – let it be repeated – that Paul offered koinonia and its cognates as literal translations of ḥesed and its derivatives: it means rather that in koinonia and its cognates Paul found a serviceable vehicle for expressing facts of relationship satisfactorily conveyed in the Hebrew by ḥesed but less than adequately represented by eleos or even agape.” Ibid., 24. 179 Hainz, Koinonia, 181. 180 Pier Cesare Bori, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ : L’idea della comunione nell’ ecclesiologia recente e nel Nuovo Testmento (Brescia: Paideia, 1972), 9.

Chapter 4: History of Research on Κοινωνία

145

oured to re-examine all the NT texts which contribute to “delineare una teologia della comunione,” which he then compared to “l’utilizzazione attuale del termine.”181 He deduced that the “vocabolario della κοινωνία” is primarily employed in the NT to express “il rapporto singolare che lega i credenti a Cristo,”182 and in particular that the “κοινωνία paolina riflette la teologia dell’ ‘in Cristo’, della comunione con il Signore.”183 Similarly, in 1979, G. Panikulam purported to develop “a new Ecclesiology” based on the “depth and beauty of the NT koinōnia,” which, he suggested, constituted “the quintessence of the new covenant community of the New Testament.”184 He deliberately distanced himself from philological studies and concentrated on the spiritual dimension of κοινωνία in the NT.185 Observing that “Paul uses the term in rich religious contexts and only in such contexts,” he came to conclude that “the primary stress in Pauline koinōnia is on a Christocentric life,” and that “koinōnia in Paul has a strict communitarian sense.”186 Others such as J. M. McDermott held to more modest ambitions, and simply attempted “a reinterpretation of κοινωνία in the Scriptures” by unravelling its “full theological import,” which, he asserted, was “revealed in the Pauline letters as that most intimate union of man with God and his fellow-men accomplished through Christ that constitutes final salvation” (which, consequently, explains why “no doctrine of κοινωνία is to be found in the Old Testament”).187 In contrast, E. Cothenet considered that κοινωνία simply represented “un dono che viene dall’alto, che sgorga dalla volontà 181

Bori, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 82. Bori, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 115. 183 Bori, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 117. Cipriani would have likely concurred with Bori’s conclusion. See Di Settimio Cipriani, “La chiesa come ‘comunione’ nel Nuovo Testamento,” Presenza Pastorale (1971): 165–68. 184 Panikulam, Koinōnia, v, 142. This view is shared by Hinnebusch, but not by Brown and Di Marco. See P. Hinnebusch, “Christian Fellowship in the Epistle to the Philippians,” TBT (April 1964): 793–98; S. Brown, “Koinonia as the Basis of New Testament Ecclesiology?” OiC 12 (1976): 157–67; Angelico Di Marco, “Koinonia–Communio: Flp 2,1,” Laur 3 (1980): 382–83. 185 Panikulam, Koinōnia, v. Dupont has also stressed the spiritual dimension of κοινωνία in his study of Acts 2:42: “il est clair que la κοινωνία des premiers chrétiens doit évoquer d’abord la façon dont ils mettaient leurs biens en commun; elle paraît cependant ne pas se limiter à la communauté des biens matériels, mais impliquer une communion plus spirituelle” (p. 505). See Jacques Dupont, “La communauté des biens aux premiers jours de l’église (Actes 2, 42.44–45; 4, 32.34–35),” in Études sur les actes des apôtres (Paris: Cerfs, 1967), 503–19. Cf. idem, “L’union entre les premiers chrétiens dans les actes des apôtres,” in Nouvelles études sur les actes des apôtres (Paris: Cerfs, 1984), 297–318. 186 Panikulam, Koinōnia, 5. 187 McDermott, “ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ,” 64–65. 182

146

Part One: Philological Survey

del Padre,” that is, a gift which enables believers to partake of the life of Christ through the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist.188 The resurgence of interest in the supposed theological significance of κοινωνία in the mid-1950s is also to be explained by an increasing concern for greater ecumenical unity between the Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox traditions, and thus by the need to resolve long-standing divisions over conflicting views of the Eucharist189 – though this has not been without methodological difficulties.190 In the aftermath of Seesemann’s philological work, it has also been motivated by a desire to recapture the apparent ecclesiological dimension of κοινωνία in the sense of Gemeinschaft, which, it has been argued, is effectuated through participation in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.191 Finding Seesemann’s claim that the term could not illumine Paul’s Kirchenidee to be a “gravierend[er] Irrtum,”192 Hainz, for instance, sought to reinstate κοινωνία as “ein ekklesiologischer Begriff von größter Bedeutung” for a better understanding of the early church.193 Similarly, K. Kertledge considered it to be, along with the “[a]postolisches Kerygma,” 188

20.

189

Edouard Cothenet, “La Communio nel Nuovo Testamento,” Communio 1 (1972):

See for instance S. Muñoz-Iglesias, “Concepto Bíblico de Κοινωνία,” Semana Bíblica Española 13 (1953): 195–223; Hans Lessig, “Die Abendmahlsprobleme in Lichte der Neutestamentlichen Forschung seit 1900” (Ph.D. diss., Rheinischen Friedrich Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, 1953), 95–109; Werner Elert, ed., Koinonia: Arbeiten des Okumenischen Ausschusses der Vereinigten Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands zur Frage der Kirchen- und Abendmahlsgemeinschaft (Berlin: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1957); Peter Bläser “Eucharistie und Einheit der Kirche in der Verkündigung des Neuen Testaments,” TGl 50 (1960): 419–32 (esp. pp. 427–32); Pro Oriente, Auf dem Weg zur Einheit des Glaubens: KOINONIA (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1976); Ferdinand Hahn, Karl Kertelge, and Rudolf Schnackenburg, eds., Einheit der Kirche: Grundlegung im Neuen Testament (Freiburg: Herder, 1979); Thomas F. Best and Günther Gassmann, eds., On the Way to Fuller Koinonia: Official Report of the Fifth World Conference on Faith and Order (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1994); Nicholas Sagovsky, Ecumenism, Christian Origins and the Practice of Communion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Cf. McDermott, “ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ,” 220–21; Panikulam, Koinōnia, 17–30; Hainz, Koinonia, 35. 190 See Lincoln, “Communion”; Groves, “Partnership,” 150–60. 191 Hainz, for example, is particularly explicit in his discussion of 1 Cor 1:9 and 10:16–21: “Es bleibt dabei: Die ‘Gemeinschaft mit Christus’, zu der wir (nach 1 Kor 1,9) berufen sind, gründet in der Teilhabe an Christi Leib und Christi Blut, die durch die Teilnahme am Essen des Brotes und am Trinken des Kelches beim Herrenmahl gewährt wird. Weil gemeinsame Teilhabe, werden die vielen Teilnehmer auch untereinander zur Gemeinschaft verbunden, ‘Gemeinde’ (bzw. ‘Kirche’) wird von daher wesentlich als Abendmahlsgemeinschaft bestimmt.” Hainz, Koinonia, 35–46. 192 Hainz, Koinonia, 11. 193 Hainz, “Gemeinschaft,” 42.

Chapter 4: History of Research on Κοινωνία

147

“die hervorstechenden Kennzeichen der Kirche des Urchristentums.”194 Following R. Schnackenburg’s suggestion that a thorough examination of “die Verwendung des Begriffsfeldes im Neuen Testament gemäß dem jeweiligen Kontext” was yet to be achieved, and that new “Folgerungen theologischer Art” had yet to be derived,195 Hainz thus undertook to investigate meticulously the Pauline evidence, convinced as he was that “paulinischen Koinoniagedanken” is “höchst bedeutsam für die Einheit der Kirche.”196 In contrast with Seesemann who considered that “[d]er Begriff κοινωνία läßt sich daher … die Kirchenidee des Paulus von ihm aus nicht beleuchten,”197 Hainz would argue that the term does shed some important light on the Kirchenidee des Paulus, and by extension, on his christology as well.198 This remarks illustrates what A. T. Lincoln has (rightly) observed about Hainz’ work, which has been relatively influential in the last thirty years, namely, that “[h]is study is intended … to be only partially linguistic and … to focus on the broader conceptuality and the theological reality and lived experience of koinonia.”199 Others, still, have concentrated on particular passages which present certain exegetical and philological difficulties.200 For example, H. Greßmann tried to elucidate Paul’s allusion to the κοινωνία τῶν δαιµονίων in 1 Corinthians 10:20 from the perspective of ancient Israelite and pagan cultic practices,201 while G. V. Jourdan focused his attention on 1 Corinthians 10:16, arguing that κοινωνία has herein “become invested with a spiritual content of such a unique enlargement and application as enabled it to reflect the transcendence of St. Paul’s concepts and beliefs concerning the relationship of Christ to his faithful ones and their relationship to him.”202 194 Karl Kertelge, “Kerygma und Koinonia: Zur theologischen Bestimmung der Kirche des Urchristentums,” in Kontinuät und Einheit (eds. P. G. Muller and W. Stenger; Freiburg: Herder, 1981), 329. 195 Rudolf Schnackenburg, “Die Einheit der Kirche unter dem Koinonia-Gedanken,” in Einheit der Kirche: Grundlegung im Neuen Testament (eds. F. Hahn, K. Kertelge, and R. Schnackenburg; Freiburg: Herder, 1979), 55. Cf. Hainz, Koinonia, 9. 196 Hainz, Koinonia, 10. Cf. ibid., 13. 197 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 99. 198 Hainz, Koinonia, 11, 170. 199 Lincoln, “Communion,” 139. 200 Beside those mentioned immediately below, see also C. Anderson Scott, “The ‘Fellowship’ or κοινωνία,” ExpTim 35 (1924): 567; Miguel Manzanera, “Koinonia en Hch 2:42: Notas sobre su interpretación y origen histórico-doctrinal,” EstEcl 52 (1977): 307– 29; Di Marco, “Koinonia.” 201 Hugo Greßmann, “Ἡ κοινωνία τῶν δαιµονίων,” ZNW 20 (1921): 224–30. 202 George V. Jourdan, “ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ in I Corinthians 10:16,” JBL 67.2 (1948): 124. Indeed, Paul “introduced into the signification of each word [i.e., κοινωνός, κοινωνία, κοινωνέω] a spiritual quality, distinctive and unique, of varying degrees of power and intensity.” This had the consequence of bringing “his whole conception of ‘sharing together’

148

Part One: Philological Survey

H. W. Hollander, on the other hand, placed the question of “the unity and solidarity of the Christian community” at the centre of this passage, thereby emphasising its ecclesiological dimension.203 As regards Galatians 2:9, Hainz drew attention to the “Schlüsselcharakter” of the “Begriff κοινωνία … für das Verständnis von Gal 2, 9f. und damit für das Verständnis des frühen Christentums,” contending that, despite the primitive organisation of the early church, “es gab ein Wissen um eine alle umgreifende κοινωνία = Gemeinschaft,” which was based on “der gemeinsamen Teilhabe aller an dem einen Evangelium.”204 G. W. Peterman, meanwhile, highlighted the issue of translating κοινωνία as a monetary contribution in Romans 15:26, an interpretation in support of which we have provided additional evidence in our study of the socio-economic and political significance of the Jerusalem collection.205 Naturally, this brief overview cannot do justice to the many other publications that have explored various aspects of the supposedly theological significance of κοινωνία. As A. T. Lincoln has aptly noted, κοινωνία has become an “elastic” and “influential term in twentieth century theology,” one which is frequently employed to express various concepts in discussions on trinitarian theology, ecclesiology, soteriology, ecumenism, ethics, or even social justice.206 We have therefore concentrated on the main treatises, deliberately excluding a number of works of lesser relevance to our study (especially those dealing with ecclesiology, liturgy, and ethics). 207 Even though we do not necessarily agree with the methodologies and coninto agreement with his mystical views of Christian life, faith and worship” as mediated through Christ.” Ibid., 112–13. 203 Harm W. Hollander, “The Idea of Fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10.14–22,” NTS 55 (2010): 470. 204 Hainz, “Gemeinschaft,” 41. Cf. Hainz, Koinonia, 123–34. 205 Gerald W. Peterman, “Romans 15:26: Make a Contribution or Establish Fellowship?” NTS 40 (1994): 457–463; Ogereau, “Κοινωνία”. 206 Lincoln, “Communion,” 136. Cf. Sagovsky, Ecumenism, 18. 207 See for instance, Arthur Carr, “The Fellowship (Κοινωνία) of Acts 2:42,” Exp 5 (1913): 458–64; William S. Wood, “Fellowship,” Exp 8th 21 (1921): 31–40; Harold W. Ford, “The New Testament Conception of Fellowship,” Shane Quarterly 6 (1945): 188– 215; L. S. Thornton, The Common Life in the Body of Christ (3rd ed.; London: Dacre, 1950), esp. pp. 5–33; J. G. Davies, Members One of Another: Aspects of Koinonia (London: A. R. Mowbray, 1958); Hinnebusch, “Fellowship”; J. Coppens, “La koinônia dans l’Église primitive,” ETL 46 (1970): 116–21; Brown, “Koinonia”; Gerd-Dieter Fisher, “Zum Koinonia-Charakter christlicher Gemeinde,” TGl 61 (1971): 39–44; Cipriani, “La chiesa”; H. Bojorge, “Koinonía – Comunicación en el Nuevo Testamento,” RevistB 37 (1975): 33–47; James D. G. Dunn, “‘Instruments of Koinonia’ in the Early Church,” OiC 25 (1989): 204–16; Best and Gassmann, Koinonia; Sigrid Rutishauser-James, “‘Partnership’ or ‘Fellowship’: which, today, is truer to the biblical witness?” ExpTim 120 (2009): 327–30; Lincoln, “Communion.”

Chapter 4: History of Research on Κοινωνία

149

clusions of many of these studies, they remain legitimate insofar as they deal with themes and issues that matter to their authors. Ultimately, however, they prove to be of limited value to our purpose since they add little to a philological understanding of κοινων- cognates, largely ignore nonbiblical literary and documentary sources, and, as this review has highlighted, often indulge in unnecessary theological extrapolations to explain Paul’s allegedly singular use of κοινων- cognates. Furthermore, as Lincoln has rightly remarked, many of their authors have fallen into the trap of what J. Barr once described as illegitimate totality transfer, whereby they have applied “the reading of a word’s meaning in one context into its meaning in another context” without recognizing that “it is not particular words but their function in whole sentences or broader contexts that may be the bearer of theological significance.”208 It will therefore be no surprise to our reader that we shall make little use of these secondary sources, which, overall, have contributed to muddy the philological waters and have led to a certain “lack of agreement about the exact semantic range of the κοινων- word group.”209

4.4 Summary As our review of scholarship has highlighted, the majority of studies on κοινωνία have been motivated by a variety of theological agendas, which have led scholars to extrapolate theological meaning from NT texts in order to address contemporary ecclesiological needs and situations. Naturally, this raises a number of questions and concerns as to the appropriateness of the (so-called) philological methodologies that have been employed. Overall, it would not be unfair to assert that only a handful of surveys, that is, those conducted by Campbell, Endenburg, Baumert, and, to a certain extent, by Seesemann as well, constitute proper philological studies. Whilst it is entirely legitimate for biblical scholars and theologians to pursue research questions pertinent to their field of enquiry and interests, it should not exempt them from first conducting the necessary, meticulous philological work. This would prevent them from superimposing on terms such as κοινωνία theological notions that may (or may not) have been foreign to the original authors and audiences. What should instead be done is, firstly, to establish the various possible sense(s) of κοινων- cognates in an-

208

Lincoln, “Communion,” 137. Cf. Barr, Semantics, 218. For classic examples, see W. Stählin, “‘Koinonia’ and Worship,” Studia Liturgica 1 (1962): 220–27; Cothenet, “Communio”; Bojorge, “Koinonía.” 209 Lincoln, “Communion,” 138.

150

Part One: Philological Survey

cient primary sources, and, secondly, to assess, case by case, which connotation makes the most sense in a particular biblical context. This is precisely the methodological approach we shall adopt in the rest of this study. In contradistinction with our predecessors, we shall initially seek to determine the various possible nuances of κοινων- cognates in documentary sources, and then, at a later stage in our exegesis of Philippians, we shall proceed to discuss which possible connotation(s) Paul might have envisaged (and his audience might have understood). Once again, our focus on documentary evidence is amply justified by the fact that they have been almost completely neglected in the past. Indeed, as our overview has pointedly illustrated, scholars have primarily concentrated their efforts and attention on (mostly philosophical) Classical-Hellenistic and (mostly post-apostolic) Christian literary sources, which, as we shall see, has been greatly prejudicial to a proper understanding of Paul’s use of κοινων- cognates in Philippians. In our next chapter, we shall endeavour to address this lacuna by conducting a thorough philological survey of κοινων- cognates in papyrological and epigraphic materials, which will further help us lay solid foundations for our subsequent exegesis.

Chapter 5

Κοινωνία Cognates in Documentary Sources 5.1 Introduction In the present chapter, we shall endeavour to examine the inscriptions and papyri in which the cognates κοινωνέω, κοινωνός, or κοινωνία, appear, in order to illustrate their possible socio-economic connotation(s) and various usage(s) in a broad range of contexts. Our focus on documentary materials purports to exploit primary sources that have so far been underutilized, even though they reflect particularly well the lingua franca of the time. While this survey does not claim to be exhaustive, it certainly tends towards the aim of classifying and examining every published instance of each of these terms in inscriptions and papyri. Our systematic scanning of the DDbDP, APIS, HGV, PHI and EDH1 databases, and of the indices of the AE, SEG, and other epigraphic volumes, should at least ensure that the following review provides a fairly representative sample of the surviving evidence. Naturally, we shall only discuss in more detail examples that are most pertinent to our investigation and shall thus draw attention specifically to documents in which a κοινων- cognate expresses economic partnership or association in a particular enterprise. The reader may consult our appendices for a complete list of all the data collected (approximately 100 inscriptions and 370 papyri), along with translations of the relevant passages and a selective bibliography. Given the bulk of extant primary literary evidence,2 which has already been probed quite extensively by J. Y. Campbell, H. Seesemann, P. J. T. Endenburg, and N. Baumert, we shall only adduce literary examples whenever they are particularly relevant and confirm a rather unusual documentary usage, or whenever they have been overlooked by our predecessors. Ultimately, our objective shall be to refine our understanding of the significance of κοινων- cognates in ancient documents so as to make better 1

The EDH database proved to be of limited use to us since it only adduced IRT 310. According to the TLG database, κοινωνία occurs 10,739 times in literary sources (some 800 instances prior to A.D. II), κοινωνός 5,235 times (some 300 instances prior to A.D. II), and κοινωνέω 10,073 times (some 1,000 instances prior to A.D. II). 2

152

Part One: Philological Survey

sense of Paul’s use of the terms in his letter to the Philippians. We shall also seek to address Peterman’s valid critique of Sampley’s thesis: The fact that κοινωνία can have the meaning ‘partnership’ does not demonstrate that κοινωνία was used by Greek speakers as a label for the Roman association of societas, nor does it demonstrate that Paul employs κοινωνία in Philippians with the meaning societas. These assertions must be demonstrated by harder evidence. Since Sampley is attempting to attribute a specialized, technical meaning to κοινωνία, the burden of proof must rest with him to demonstrate a connection between societas and κοινωνία.3

This chapter aims to uncover some of the hard evidence that may give credence to, or nuance, Sampley’s claim that there existed a semantic connection between societas and κοινωνία. The chapter is thus intended to lay down further the philological foundations for our subsequent exegesis of Philippians, in which we shall argue that Paul employs κοινων- terms in a much more specific socio-economic manner than what has usually been appreciated.

5.2 Κοινωνία and its Cognates in Inscriptions 5.2.1 Κοινωνέω In the great majority of cases, the verb κοινωνέω is employed in conjunction with partitive genitives such as τοῦ ἱεροῦ/ τῶν ἱερῶν, τᾶς/τῆς θυσίας/ τῶν θυσιῶν, τῆς πανηγύρεως, τοῦ ἀγῶνος, to express participation in religious festivals, including sacrifices, and athletic or artistic contests.4 This usage is observed as early as IV B.C. (IIlion 1), right through to A.D. II (IDelphes 4.152).5 The object of participation, that which is shared or held in common, or the purpose for which an association is formed, may of course vary. It can sometimes refer to common funds or treasuries (κ. τῶν κοινῶν χρηµάτων/θεµάτων; IDelphes 1.9, ca. 350 B.C.),6 a crime (κ. τῆς 3

Peterman, Gift, 125–26 (emphasis added). Cf. Horsley, NewDocs 3, 19, #4. On the significance of the expression κοινωνία τῶν ἱερῶν/θυσιῶν, see especially William S. Ferguson and Arthur D. Nock, “The Attic Orgeones and the Cult of Heroes,” HTR 37.2 (1944): 76, 156. 5 E.g., IKosSegre 149 (late IV B.C.–early III B.C.); Rigsby, Asylia 16 (ca. 242 B.C.); Rigsby, Asylia 48 (ca. 242 B.C.); IMagnMai 33 (ca. 206–203 B.C.); IMagnMai 44 (ca. III B.C.); IIlion 2 (ca. III B.C.); Mitsos, REG 59/60 (1946): 150–74 (ca.189 B.C.); IG IX 1.32 (ca. 170 B.C.); SEG 53.1373 (ca. 200–150 B.C.); IIlion 12 (I B.C.); perhaps also IG II² 1110 (ca. A.D. 180–192). 6 Ed. pr. Théophile Homolle, “Règlements de la phratrie des Labyadai,” BCH 19 (1895): 5–69. Cf. Etienne Dragoumis, “Coup d’oeil sur les règlements de la phratrie des Labyadai,” BCH 19 (1895): 295–302; Jean Bousquet, “Le cippe des Labyades,” BCH 90.1 (1966): 82–92. 4

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

153

πράξιος; IMylasa 3, 355/4 B.C.), human nature (κ. φύσεως ἀνθρωπίνης; IGLSyr 1.51, I B.C.),7 a professional activity (κ. τοῦ ἐπιτηδεύµατος; SEG 56.1359, A.D. 133/134),8 a service or facility (κ. τῆς πορθµείας; ISmyrna 2.712, ca. A.D. II.), 9 or a tomb (κ. τῆς σοροῦ πρός τινα; IHierapJ 336, date unknown; cf. possibly IGLSyr 2.661, III B.C.).10 The verb may also acquire a more political connotation signifying, for instance, participation in the politeia of a city. The earliest example of this use is found on a bronze disk from Olympia honouring two foreigners, upon whom is conferred the right of citizenship in the colonies of Sparta and Euboia: καὶ τᾶρ ἐπιϝοικίας τᾶρ ἐν Σπάρται κ’ ⟨ἐ⟩ν Εὐβοίαι κοινανν (ll. 2–3; SEG 51.532, ca. 450 B.C.).11 This usage is also observed in a (now lost) decree from Dyme, Achaia, regulating citizenship rights: τὸν θέλοντα κοινωνεῖν τᾶς πολι|[τείας ἄνδρ?]α ἐλεύθερον (ll. 2–3, cf. l. 18: [κοι]νωνεῖ[ν τᾶς πολιτείας]; SEG 40.394, III B.C.).12 What is implied by κοινωνεῖν τᾶς

7

Ed. pr. Karl Humann and Otto Puchstein, Reisen in Kleinasien und Nordsyrien (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1890), 368–72. Cf. P. M. Fraser, “Inscriptions from Commagene,” ABSA 47 (1952): 96–99; Helmut Waldmann, Die kommagenischen Kultreformen unter König Mithradates I Kallinikos und seinem Sohne Antiochos I (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), 33–42. This inscription was known to Deissmann. See Deissmann, BS, 368 (n. 2). 8 Ed. pr. Georg Petzl and Elmar Schwertheim, Hadrian und die dionysischen Künstler: Drei in Alexandria Troas neugefundene Briefe des Kaisers an die Künstler-Vereinigung (Bonn: R. Habelt, 2006). Cf. Christopher P. Jones, “Three New Letters of the Emperor Hadrian,” ZPE 161 (2007): 145–56; William J. Slater, “Hadrian’s Letters to the Athletes and Dionysiac Artists concerning Arrangements for the ‘Circuit’ of Games,” JRA 21 (2008): 610–20. 9 The sense is probably more that of enjoying the use of (a service/facility) here. Cf. LBW 4; IBM 4.1021; SIG 1262; IGRR 4.1427; Frank F. Abbott, and Allan C. Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (New York: Russell and Russell, 1968), 387, #70. 10 The date of IHierapJ 336 is not determined. Cf. CIG 3916; Gladiateurs 126; SEG 46.1669; Ritti and Yilmaz, “Gladiatori,” MAL 10 (1998): 528–30, #22. See also Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 7. 11 I.e., and they may join in the colonies of Sparta and Euboia. Note: κοινανν is the dialectal form of the Attic κοινωεῖν and is here synonymous with µετέχειν. See ed. pr. Peter Siewert, “Die wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Bedeutung der Bronze-Urkunden aus Olympia,” in Olympia 1875–2000: 125 Jahre Deutsche Ausgrabungen (ed. H. Kyrieleis; Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern, 2002), 365. Cf. Julia Taita, “Indovini stranieri al servizio delio stato spartano: Un’ ‘epoikia’ elea a Sparta in una nuova iscrizione da Olimpia,” Dike 4 (2001): 39–85; Sophie Minon, Les inscriptions éléennes dialectales (VIe–IIe siècle avant J.-C.) (vol. 1; Genève: Droz, 2007), 113–18, #16. 12 I.e., (let) he who wants to participate in the politeia be free. Ed. pr. Jules Martha, “Inscriptions d’Achaïe,” BCH 2 (1878): 94–96. Cf. Jean Bingen, “Inscription d’Achaïe,” BCH 78 (1954): 86–87; Athanasios D. Rizakis, “La politeia dans les cités de la confédération achéenne,” Tyche 5 (1990): 110–34; idem, Achaïe III: Les cités Achéennes (Athènes: de Boccard, 2008), 44–49, #3; L. Dubois, BE (1991): 485–86, #303.

154

Part One: Philological Survey

πολιτείας, i.e., the “participation aux cultes et aux magistratures civils,”13 is elaborated more precisely further down the inscription: [καὶ κοινω]νεόντω θεοκολιᾶν, ἇν ἁ πόλις καθιστᾶι ἐν̣ | [τᾶι φυλᾶι τᾶι] ἑ̣αυτῶν, καὶ ἀρχείων τῶν τε εἰς τὸ Κοινόν (ll. 32–33).14 Although this expression is also found in literary sources,15 it is rather less common than the phrase µετέχειν τῆς πολιτείας, “la tournure consacrée et quasi stéréotypée des plaidoyers judiciaires qui débattent du statut du citoyen.”16 In another instance, a decree from the city of Mytilene on Lesbos island, the verb alludes to a political and military alliance with Rome: δὲ καὶ διὰ τὴν οὖσαν αὐτῶι ἀπὸ τῆς [ἀρ]‖χ̣ῆς πρὸς Ῥωµαίους εὔνοιάν τε καὶ φιλίαν καὶ διὰ τὴν ὑ|πάρχουσαν πρὸς αὐτοὺς συµµαχίαν κοινωνοῦντος τοῦ συνεστῶτος αὐτοῖς ἐν τῆι Ἀσίᾳ πολέµου (ll. 9–12; SEG 3.710, ca. 129 B.C.).17 Both the context and the mention of φιλία and συµµαχία, two key terms in Roman foedus phraesology, 18 make the connotation of κοινωνέω (ἐν τῆι Ἀσίᾳ πολέµου) unequivocal here. Similar political overtones may be heard in Alexander the Great’s letter to the Chians that makes reference to allied Greek cities sharing in the peace: τῶν δὲ προδόντων | τοῖς βαρβάροις τὴν πόλιν ὅσοι µὲν ἂν προεξέλθωσιν φεόγειν | αὀτοὺς ἐξ ἁπασῶν τῶν πόλεων τῶν τῆς εἰρήνης κοινωνουσῶν καὶ εἶναι ἀγωγίµους κατὰ τὸ δόγµα τὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων (ll. 10–13; SIG 283, 334/3–332 B.C.).19 Based on the content of the decree, 13

Rizakis, “La politeia,” 122. I.e., let them participate in the religious magistracies, which the city has established according to [each tribe], and in the civic magistracies concerning the confederation. 15 E.g., Isocrates, Or. 14.8; Plato, [Alc.] 125d; idem, Leg. 6.753; Demosthenes, Or. 10.45; Aristotle, Ath. pol. 37.1; idem, Pol. 1268a (l. 18), 1292b (ll. 24–25); Lucian, Deor. conc. 14 (l.13). The expression is also observed in the LXX (e.g., 2 Chr 20:35; cf. Josephus, B.J. 1:483). 16 Jacqueline Bordes, Politeia dans la pensée grecque jusqu’à Aristote (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1982), 102. Bordes refutes the idea that κοινωνεῖν has a different meaning from µετέχειν, and argues that stylistic preference is to account for the difference in usage in literary sources. Rather than concentrating on κοινωνεῖν and µετέχειν to determine the sense of the expression, she suggests that focus should be placed on the meaning and implications of πολιτεία: “Pour parler de κοινωνεῖν ou µετέχειν τῆς πολιτείας il faudrait savoir ce qu’est exactement et profondément politeia. C’est à politeia qu’il faut donner de l’importance et un sens précis pour que ces expressions aient elles-mêmes un sens.” 17 I.e., and also on account of his enduring goodwill and friendship towards the Romans from the beginning, and on account of his alliance with them, when he joined them in the Asian war. Cf. D. Evangelidis, “Lesbou Epigraphai,” AD 4 (1920): 99–104, #1; Labarre, Lesbos 65. 18 Cf. Stephen Mitchell, “The Treaty between Rome and Lycia of 46 BC (MS 2070),” in Papyri Graecae Schøyen (PSchøyen I) (ed. R. Pintaudi; Firenze: Gonnelli, 2005), 187. 19 I.e., and of those who betrayed the city to the Barbarians, as many as fled from all the cities sharing in the peace, they are to be exiled and are liable to be seized according to the decree of the Greeks. The expression is found in Demosthenes as well (e.g., Or. 14

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

155

and in view of the political situation at the time, the peace mentioned can only correspond to the Corinthian league, viz., the political and military alliance of Greek cities under Alexander’s autocratic rule, which was formed to confront and withstand the Persian threat.20 The verb can of course also be found in non-political contexts in the sense of collaboration in a common enterprise. This connotation is clearly displayed on a mosaic inscription from the Syrian basilica of Houeidjit Halaoua (Osroene): Ἡ ἐλευθέρα | Κοσµία καὶ | ὁ τιµ(ιώτατος) Κοσµᾶς | ἐκοινώνη‖σαν ἐν τῷ | ἔργῳ τούτῳ (SEG 40.1380 bis; A.D. 471).21 In this instance, it is almost certain that the couple mentioned were not the actual workmen who laid down the mosaic floor. Rather, they were the benefactors, who, in a collaborative effort, contributed financially to the construction costs. P. Donceel-Voûte thus translated: “L’épouse Kosmia et le très honorable Kosmas se sont cotisés pour ce travail.”22 Overall, then, the verb is rarely encountered in inscriptions as denoting an economic partnership of some kind, as may be more frequently observed in literary and papyrological sources. We were in fact able to discover only one such example. In IEph 1a. 4, the law on the liquidation of debts after the war between Demetrius and Lysimachus around 297–296 B.C., a rare substantive participial form of προσκοινωνέω, τοῦ προσκοινωνοῦντος, is employed to describe creditors and landholders’ contractual agreement regarding the partial remission of debt and the proportionate re-allocation of land amongst themselves: ἀντίγραφα δὲ λαµβάνειν τὸγ γεωργὸν τῶν τοῦ τ[οκισ]|τοῦ τοῦ αὐτῶι προσκοινωνοῦντος καὶ τὸν [τ]οκι7.30: τοὺς κοινωνοῦντας τῆς εἰρήνης; [Or.]17.6: τοῖς τῆς εἰρήνης κοινωνοῦσι). Ed. pr. Georgios Zolotas, “A’ Epistole Basileos Alexandrou tou Philipppou,” Athena 5 (1893): 7–33. Cf. B. Haussoullier, “Bulletin épigraphique: Un rescript d’Alexandre le Grand,” RPh 17.2 (1893): 188–90. A larger bibliography on this well-studied inscription is available in A. J. Heisserer, “Alexander’s Letter to the Chians: A Redating of SIG3 283,” Historia 22.2 (1973): 191 (n. 1). The exact date of the document remains a debated question. Most settle for 332 B.C., but Heisserer has argued in favour of 334 B.C. See Heisserer, “Alexander,” 191–204; idem, Alexander the Great and the Greeks: The Epigraphic Evidence (1st ed.; Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980), 79–95. 20 Cf. Haussoullier, “Bulletin,” 189–90. For the wider context of this decree see Ernst Badian, “Alexander the Great and the Greeks of Asia,” in Ancient Society and Institutions: Studies presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th Birthday (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), 46–53; A. B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 192–94. 21 I.e., the spouse Kosmia and the most honourable Kosmas jointly participated in this work. Note: ἐλευθέρα is to be understood here as meaning “libérée de la tutelle paternelle,” hence, as married. See ed. pr. Pauline Donceel-Voûte, Les pavements des églises byzantines de Syrie et du Liban: Décor, archéologie et liturgie (Louvain-laNeuve: Département d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie Collège Erasme, 1988), 147. 22 Donceel-Voûte, Les pavements, 147 (emphasis added).

156

Part One: Philological Survey

στὴν τῶν τοῦ γεωργοῦ τοῦ αὐτ[ῶι προσ]|κοινωνοῦντος τιµηµάτωγ καὶ δανείων κτλ. (ll. 26–28).23 Although this use of a participle is quite unusual, it is not without precedent. Demosthenes, for instance, calls those forming a business partnership for the concession of mines οἱ κοινωνοῦντες (µετάλλου) (Or. 37.38).24 Similarly, in his discussion on the attribution of public contracts by Roman censors, Polybius makes reference (without using a participial form) to those who associate (οἱ κοινωνοῦσι) with the manceps (or auctor) purchasing the contracts (οἱ ἀγοράζουσι; Polybius, Hist. 6.17.4).25 In context, there can be little doubt as to the identity of these associates who must have been socii of societates publicanorum.26 These are also mentioned in two similar excursuses by Livy and Cicero concerning a lex censoria and a lex locationis (Livy 43.16.2; Cicero, Verr. 2.1.143),27 which has led C. Nicolet to conclude that Polybius’ (οἱ) κοινωνοῦντες (i.e., κοινωνοί) performed similar (economic) functions as the socii of Livy and 23

I.e., and the landowner is to receive copies of the valuations and loans from the creditor partnering with him, and vice versa the creditor is to receive copies of the valuations and loans from the landowner partnering with him etc. Since war had ravaged the Ephesian country-side, property value had considerably diminished and landholders, who had mortgaged their property, were unable to repay their loans. This law introduced a complex series of provisions to ensure the proper valuation of land parcels and their redistribution both to creditors and landholders in proportion to the amount owed. Cf. David Asheri, “Leggi greche sul problema dei debiti,” SCO 18 (1969): 42–44, 108–14; David Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (vol. 1; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), 90–91. 24 For a similar participial use, see also Or. 7.30 (τοὺς κοινωνοῦντας τῆς εἰρήνης), Or. 40.58 (οἱ κοινωνοῦντες τῶν πραγµάτων περὶ ὧν ἂν δικάζηταί τις αὐτοῖς), and Or. 54.37 (οἱ κεκοινωνηκότες τοσαύτης καὶ τοιαύτης φιλαπεχθηµοσύνης καὶ πονηρίας καὶ ἀναιδείας καὶ ὕβρεως). 25 Polybius, Hist. 6.17.4: οἱ µὲν γὰρ ἀγοράζουσι παρὰ τῶν τιµητῶν αὐτοὶ τὰς ἐκδόσεις, οἱ δὲ κοινωνοῦσι τούτοις, οἱ δ᾽ ἐγγυῶνται τοὺς ἠγορακότας, οἱ δὲ τὰς οὐσίας διδόασι περὶ τούτων εἰς τὸ δηµόσιον (i.e., for some buy from the censors the lease contracts, others partner with these, others stand as sureties for the purchasers, while others, still, pledge their own properties to the state concerning these matters). 26 Cf. Wilcken, Ostraka, 554. 27 Livy, Hist. 43.16.2: in ea re cum equestrem ordinem offendissent, flammam invidiae adiecere edicto, quo edixerunt, ne quis eorum, qui Q. Fulvio A. Postumio censoribus publica vectigalia aut ultro tributa conduxissent, ad hastam suam accederet sociusve aut adfinis eius conductionis esset; Cicero, Verr. 2.1.143: QVI DE L. MARCIO M. PERPERNA CENSORIBVS … SOCIVM NE ADMITTITO, NEVE PARTEM DATO, NEVE REDIMITO. Nicolet emends the manuscript as follows: “Qui de L. Marcio L. Perperna cens. [de L. Sulla Q. Metello cons. de L. Octavio C. Aurelio cons. redemerit, ad hastam meam ne accedito. Qui ad hastam me accesserit eum] socium ne admittito neve partem dato neve redimito.” Claude Nicolet, “Polybius VI, 17, 4 and the Composition of the Societates Publicanorum,” The Irish Jurist 6 (1971): 170. Cf. Ferdinand Kniep, Societas Publicanorum (Jena: G. Hischer, 1896), 110–11.

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

157

Cicero.28 In the case of IEph 1a.4, the contractual connotation of the term is further reinforced by the double use of the verb ὁµολογέω at the beginning of the sentence (ll. 24, 25), which stresses the legal aspect of the agreement (just as in contractual papyri).29 A similarly legal nuance may be perceived in one last inscription concerning arbitrations between the cities of Temnos and Klazomenai, in which city delegates are prohibited from partnering in lawsuits: Τὸν δὲ ἐπ̣ [ήκοον30 περὶ τούτων µόνον δικάζειν, µήτε ἄλλης?]31 κοινωνεῖ δίκης µηδεµιᾶς (Frag. B, ll. 15–17; SEG 29.1130 bis, ca. 200–150 B.C.).32 Even though the meaning of the sentence is not entirely clear due to the lacunose state of the stone, in context the idea conveyed is surely that of a partnership for the purpose of leading a prosecution in courts, which somewhat echoes a similar passage in Plato’s Laws.33 5.2.2 Κοινωνός In contrast with κοινωνέω, the substantive κοινωνός is much more frequently attested as bearing an economic connotation in inscriptions. More precisely, it often designates a business associate, just as in several of Demosthenes’ judicial orations.34 Such instances can be found as early as IV B.C, as in the following horos inscription which identifies as κοινωνοί

28

Nicolet, “Polybius,” 164, 170–71. See especially pp. 24–38 of the standard study by Heiko F. von Soden, Untersuchungen zur Homologie in den griechischen Papyri Ägyptens bis Diokletian (Cologne: Bölau, 1973). Cf. Waszynski, Bodenpacht, 33–42; Weiss, Privatrecht, 431–33; Fritz Pringsheim, The Greek Law of Sale (Weimar: H. Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1950), 26–43. 30 The term is not so much to be understood as signifying witness, but rather delegate. See ed. pr. Peter Herrmann, “Neue Urkunden zur Geschichte von Milet im 2. Jahrhundert v. Chr.,” MDAI (I) 15 (1965): 265: “Es wird deutlich, daß der auch in anderen Bereichen des Gerichtswesens vorkommende Terminus έπήκοος hier nicht eigentlich in der Bedeutung als ‘Zeuge’, sondern allgemeiner als ‘Delegierter’ in spezifischer Mission zu interpretieren ist.” Cf. LSJ, s.v. έπήκοος IV. 31 For this restoration see Francis Piejko, “Textual Supplements to the New Inscriptions concerning Temnos,” MDAI (I) 36 (1986): 97. 32 I.e., and the [delegate is to adjudicate only concerning these matters?], [nor?] does he participate in any [other?] lawsuit. Cf. the expression κοινωνοὶ τῆς δίκης (l. 40). 33 Leg. 768b: δεῖ δὲ δὴ καὶ τῶν ἰδίων δικῶν κοινωνεῖν κατὰ δύναµιν ἅπαντας (i.e., and so it is necessary that all the citizens participate in private litigations also, as far as is possible). In this instance, however, Plato is probably referring to the citizens’ right to serve in the popular courts as judges or dicasts (after having been selected by lot). Cf. Glenn R. Morrow, Plato’s Cretan City: A Historical Interpretation of the Laws (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960), 251–73. 34 E.g., Demosthenes, Or. 32.7, 15, 17, 21; 34.8, 28–29, 41; 35.16; 37.3; 56.5, 7, 9, 10, 24, 42, 45. Cf. Beauchet, Histoire, 4:380–82. 29

158

Part One: Philological Survey

some associate entrepreneurs from the deme of Acharnae in Attica (SEG 19.181; mid-IV B.C.):35 Ὅρος ἐνναίας36 πεπραµένης καὶ ὀχετῶι διαγωγῆς παρὰ Κτήµονος Συπαληττίου ἐκ τοῦ χω[ρ]ίου τούτου εἰς τὸν ἅπ[αν]τα χρόνον ΗΗ δραχµ[ὰς]37 τοῖς κοινωνοῖς τοῦ [Ἀχα]ρνικοῦ ὀχετοῦ ὥσ[τ’ ἐξ]εῖναι αὐτοῖς ἄγει[ν τὸν ὀ]χετὸν βάθος [ὅσον ἄν] βούλωνται

Boundary stone of the spring sold and channelled by aqueduct from Ktemon of the deme of Sypalettos, out of this field, for all time, 700 drachmas (paid) by the associates of the aqueduct of the deme of Acharnae, so that they may be allowed to draw the aqueduct as deep as they wish.

Another boundary stone discovered nearby may have contained a comparable reference to such κοινωνοί (SEG 19.182; IV B.C.), though one cannot be entirely certain.38 As regards the purpose of these horos stones, G. Klaffenbach argued that it was to record and to assert the right of a “Konsortium von Unternehmern”39 to draw water from the spring (ἐνναία) and to build an ὀχετός through private fields.40 Klaffenbach would later discover two more inscriptions relating to underground drainage (ὑπόνοµοι) near Menidi, Acharnae, which may have mentioned similar κοινωνοί contractors (IG II2 2491, mid-IV B.C.; IG II2 2502, IV B.C.). However, only the second one presents possible traces of the term, which he restored as follows: 35 See ed. pr. Princesses Sophia and Irene, and T. A. Arvanitopoulou, Ἀρχαιολογικὰ Ποικίλα (Athens 1960), 28–37. Cf. Eugene Vanderpool, “News Letter from Greece,” AJA

65.3 (1961): 299; Günther Klaffenbach, “ΟΡΟΙ ΕΝΝΑΙΑΣ,” MDAI (A) 76 (1961): 121– 26; Reinhard Koerner, “Zu Recht und Verwaltung der griechischen Wasserversorgung nach den Inschriften,” APF 22/23 (1974): 170–72. 36 At the time of publication, the word was a hapax legomenon, which the editors understood to be deriving from the verb νάω, to flow. Klaffenbach has since then recognised the same word in the letters [.]νναίαν (clearly) visible on IG II² 2491 (mid-IV B.C.). This interpretation has been further confirmed by a gloss from Photius discovered by Theodoridis, who suggested Strömung, Quelle, as its meaning. See Klaffenbach, “ΟΡΟΙ”; Christos Theodoridis, “Die ΟΡΟΙ ΕΝΝΑΙΑϹ der Inschriften SEG 19,181.182 und Photius E 989,” ZPE 60 (1985): 51–52. Cf. J. and L. Robert, BE (1962): 150, #126; J. and L. Robert, BE (1964): 158–59, #160. 37 Corrected to δραχµ[ῶν] by Klaffenbach, “ΟΡΟΙ,” 121. 38 Cf. ed. pr. Princesses Sophia and Irene, and Arvanitopoulou, Ἀρχαιολογικὰ, 34. 39 Klaffenbach, “ΟΡΟΙ,” 125. 40 Klaffenbach, “ΟΡΟΙ,” 121–22. Cf. Koerner, “Wasserversorgung,” 170–72. These two boundary stones seem to have been related to a subterranean aqueduct excavated in the environs of Menidi. See E. Konsolaki, “Odos Athenon kai Theophrastou,” AD 34 (1979): 91–92, B1; H. W. Catling, “Archaeology in Greece, 1987–88,” AR 34 (1987– 1988): 10.

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

159

[δ]ραχµῶν ὥστ’ εἶ[ναι τὴν ἐνναίαν τοῦ χωρίου τῶν κοι]νωνῶν τοῦ Ἀχ[αρνικοῦ ὀχετοῦ] (ll. 5–7).41 A similar usage of κοινωνός can be observed in two more inscriptions from IV B.C. The first one consists of a detailed list of regulations on building contracts from Tegea written in the Arkadian dialect (IG V 2.6, ca. 350 B.C.). Towards the end of the law, one clause specifically forbids several contractors from associating for the completion of a project: µὴ ἐξέστω δὲ µηδὲ κοινᾶνας γενέσθαι | πλέον ἢ δύο ἐπὶ µηδεν̣ὶ τῶν ἔργων κτλ. (ll. 21–22).42 The economic connotation of this archaic and dialectical form of κοινωνός is quite evident in context. Likewise, in an inscribed contract from Euboia dating from about the same period, the associates of the main contractor in charge of the draining of the marshes of Eritrea are designated as κοινωνοί: Χ[α]ιρεφάνην καὶ τοὺς κοινω[ν]ούς (l. 31; IG XII 9.191).43 The business connotation of the word is unambiguous here as well, since those associated with Chairephane, οἱ µετὰ Χαιρεφάνους (ll. 38, 40), are called his ἐργαζοµένοι and συνεργαζοµένοι elsewhere in the inscription (ll. 28, 38, 39). There can thus be no question that Chairephane and these unnamed κοινωνοί were his business partners in the excavation work.44 As T. Homolle has noted, such partnerships amongst contractors were in fact quite common for large building projects.45 From the Roman period onwards, the term κοινωνός seems to refer more specifically to an associate involved in a societas publicanorum, that is, a socius or publicanus. This can be inferred from several funerary inscriptions from Asia Minor which date from A.D. I–II. In the first instance, a 41 I.e., (?) drachmas (paid) so that [the spring of the field may belong to?] the associates of the aqueduct of Acharnae (?). See Klaffenbach, “ΟΡΟΙ,” 123–25. Cf. J. and L. Robert, BE (1964): 158, #160. 42 I.e., it is not permited that there be more than two partners in any enterprise etc. Note: the Arkadian form κοινᾶνας here corresponds to the Attic nominative form κοινωνός. See LSJ, s.v. κοινών; Buck, Dialects, 201–204, #119; I. M. Egea, Documenta selecta ad historiam linguae graecae inlustrandam (Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco, 1988), 60–61, #47; IArkadDubois IG 6. For a discussion on the legal implications of this inscription, see Gerhard Thür, “Bemerkungen zum altgriechischen Werkvertrag (die Bauvergabeordnung aus Tegea, IG V/2, 6A),” in Studi in onore di Arnaldo Biscardi (vol. 5; Milan: Cisalpino-La Goliardica, 1984), 471–514; idem, IPArk 3, pp. 32–45. 43 Holleaux suggested a date between ca. 322–309/308 B.C. See Maurice Holleaux, “Note sur un décret d’Érétrie,” REG 10 (1897): 189 (n. 1). One must refrain from relating these κοινωνοί to those of SEG 19.181, however. See J. and L. Robert, BE (1964): 158– 59, #160. For a detailed commentary on the inscription, see Denis Knoepfler, “Le contrat d’Érétrie en Eubée pour le drainage de l’étang de Ptéchai,” in Irrigation et drainage dans l’Antiquité: Qanāts et canalisations souterraines en Iran, en Égypte et en Grèce (ed. P. Briant. Paris: Thotm, 2001), 41–79. 44 Cf. Knoepfler, “Le contrat,” 54. 45 Homolle, “Comptes,” 464.

160

Part One: Philological Survey

certain P. Curtius is described as the agent (ἄκτωρ) of the κοινωνοί in charge of the 5% manumission tax: [Πόπ]λιος Κούρτιος | Φ[αῦσ?]τος ἄκτωρ κοι|νωνῶν εἰκοστῆς ἐλευ|θερίας (ll. 1–4; IEph 2245, A.D. I–II).46 No further information is provided to help us identify this man more precisely, though his qualification as an ἄκτωρ gives us a hint as to his social rank, i.e., either a slave or a freedman.47 In any case, it is very likely that the κοινωνοί for whom P. Curtius worked were “des publicains, socii.”48 The presence of publicans in the Roman province of Asia is indeed well attested after the Mithridatic wars, since the administration of indirect taxes, such as the portoria (customs dues) or the vicesima manumissionum (manumission tax), were generally entrusted to their societates.49 J. and L. Robert held the same opinion regarding the κοινωνοί mentioned in similar epitaphs discovered at Iasos.50 The first stone is dedicated to a certain Poulcher, the οἰκονόµος of the κοινωνοί in charge of the portoria in Iasos: Ποῦλχερ | κοινωνῶν | λιµένων Ἀ|σίας οἰκο|νόµος ἐν | Ἰάσῳ (ll. 1–7; IIasos 2.416, A.D. I–II). 51 For F. Dürrbach and G. A. Radet, there could be little hesitation about the sense of κοινωνοί here: “ce sont les publicains, c’est-à-dire les sociétés de financiers qui, dans l’empire romain, prenaient à ferme certains impôts et les prélevaient à leur compte en payant au trésor une somme déterminée.”52 M. I. Rostovtzeff and E. L. Hicks concurred, the latter asserting that “the word κοινωνῶν is a translation of sociorum (of 46

I.e., P. Curtius Faustus (?), agent of the socii (i.e., publicani) of the twentieth-part (5%) manumission tax (i.e., vicesima manumissionum/libertatis). Cf. ed. pr. Josef Keil, “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos,” JÖAI 26 (1930): Beibl., 63–64. 47 Cf. Jean-Jacques Aubert, Business Managers in Ancient Rome: A Social and Economic Study of Institores, 200 B.C.–A.D. 250 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 341–42; O. van Nijf, “The Social World of Tax Farmers and their Personnel,” in The Customs Law of Asia (eds. M. Cottier et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 285–88. See also Berger, EDRL, s.v. actor, 348. 48 Cf. J. and L. Robert, BE (1964): 158–59, #160. 49 T. R. S. Broughton, “Roman Landholding in Asia Minor,” TAPA 65 (1934): 209– 10; P. A. Brunt, “Sulla and the Asian Publicans,” Latomus 15 (1956): 17–25. On the subject of portoria more generally, see Siegfried J. de Laet, Portorium: Étude sur l’organisation douanière chez les Romains, surtout à l’époque du Haut-Empire (New York: Arno, 1975). 50 J. and L. Robert, BE (1964): 158–59, #160. 51 I.e., Poulcher, overseer of the socii (i.e., publicani) of the portoria tax of Asia in Iasos. Ed. pr. D. Chaviaras, Mouseion kai Bibliotheke tes Evanggelikes Scholes (Smyrne: N. A. Damianou, 1878), 49, #276. Cf. Félix Dürrbach and Georges A. Radet, “Inscriptions de la Pérée rhodienne,” BCH 10 (1886): 267–69; E. L. Hicks, “Iasos,” JHS 8 (1887): 113. The stone was initially discovered in Iasos, before being moved to Syme, an island north of Rhodes. See Robert, BE (1950): 133–34, #36; idem, BE (1964): 158–59, #160; idem, BE (1971): 510–11, #624. 52 Dürrbach and Radet, “Inscriptions,” 267. Cf. LSJ, s.v. κοινωνός: “κοινωνοὶ λιµένων, of a societas publicanorum which farmed harbour-dues.”

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

161

societates publicanorum).”53 Even H. Seesemann recognised that the term herein designates a “Geschäftsteilhaber.”54 Poulcher, who was most likely either a slave or a freedman, then probably served at one of the toll stations as the vilicus of the societas, i.e., its Kassenbeamte, just as the Felix of CIL III 447 did in Milet (see below).55 Another bilingual tombstone found in Iasos was also erected in honour of a tax-collector: [ – sociorum] | port(uum) Asiạ[e vilicus] | Iassi | ṣa[ – – ] | κοι[νωνῶν λιµένων Ἀσίας οἰκονόµος ἐν Ἰασῷ] (ll. 1–6; IIasos 2.417, A.D. I–II.). 56 Although the stone is partially erased, the upper Latin section and the text of IIasos 2.416 have allowed epigraphists to restore the Greek bottom portion with reasonable confidence.57 Here again, the most plausible interpretation is that these κοινωνοί were publicani. J. and L. Robert concluded unequivocally: “les κοινωνοί de l’inscription de Symè (Iasos) [IIasos 2.416, 417] sont des publicains de l’époque romaine, les socii des portoria (λιµένων).”58 Four more inscriptions from the same period deserve to be mentioned here. The first one is a bilingual epitaph dedicated to the memory of a certain Felix, the slave of Primio and overseer of the publicani in charge of the portoria of the harbours of Asia: Felici Primioni(s) X̅ X̅ X̅ X̅ (i.e., quadragesimae) port(oriorum) Asiae v(i)lic(i) Mil(eti) se[r](uo) Φήλικι Πρειµίωνος κοιν(ωνῶν) M̅ (i.e., τεσσαρακοστῆς) λιµέν(ων) Ἀσίας οἰκον(όµου) Μειλήτ(ῳ) δούλῳ (ll. 1–4; CIL III 447, + add. CIL III 7149; ca. A.D. 1– 50).59 T. Mommsen seemed unsure about the abbreviation κοιν and had initially restored κοιν(οῦ) (CIL III 447). However, upon consulting F. Dürrbach and G. A. Radet, he later suggested κοιν(ωνῶν) (add. CIL III 7149; cf. ILS 1862, n. 3: “intellege: κοινωνῶν”).60 Although no word corresponds 53

Hicks, “Iasos,” 113. Cf. M. I. Rostovtzeff, Geschichte der Staatspacht in der römischen Kaiserzeit bis Diokletian (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1902), 380. 54 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 21. 55 See Peter Landvogt, Epigraphische Untersuchungen über den ΟΙΚΟNΟ ΜΟΣ: Ein Beitrag zum hellenistischen Beamtenwesen (Strassburg: M. Dumont Schauberg, 1908), 30–31, 46. Cf. Dürrbach and Radet, “Inscriptions,” 267. 56 I.e., [overseer of the socii?] of the portoria tax of Asia in Iasos, [overseer?] of the socii (i.e., publicani) [of the portoria tax of Asia in Iasos?]. Ed. pr. G. Pugliese Carratelli, ASAA 29/30 (1967–1968): 72–73, #38. Cf. AE 1974 (1978): 167, #625; AE 1979 (1982): 188–89, #610. 57 See J. L. Robert, BE (1971): 510–11, #624. 58 J. and L. Robert, BE (1964): 158–59, #160. IIasos 2.416 was included in LSJ. See LSJ, s.v. κοινωνός 2. 59 I.e., to Felix, the slave of Primio of the socii (i.e., publicani) of the fortieth-part (2.5%) (customs) tax of the harbours of Asia (i.e., portoria tax), the overseer in Miletos (translation based on the Greek text). Note: the stone has greatly suffered from erosion since it was first transcribed in 1689. For the latest edition see IMilet 4.2.563. 60 Dürrbach and Radet, “Inscriptions,” 268.

162

Part One: Philological Survey

exactly to κοιν(ωνῶν) in the Latin version, this interpretation very much accords with the context. The abbreviations X̅ X̅ X̅ X̅ port(oriorum) Asiae and M̅ λιµέν(ων) Ἀσίας can only refer to the customs tax on imports and exports in and out of the province of Asia, which was overseen by a societas publicanorum, as F. Dürrbach, G. A. Radet, and R. A. Kearsley, have deduced.61 Two other references to κοινωνοί can also be found in the lengthy lex portorii Asiae regulating the collection of the same portoria (SEG 39.1180, A.D. 62): l. 81: [καὶ τοῦ πράγµατος/χρήµατος] τούτου ἐνεχύρου λῆψις ἔστω κοινωνοῖς τοῖς τὰ γεωρύχια ἠργολαβηκόσιν κτλ.62 l. 119: καὶ τὸ σῶµα τοῦτο τῆι τῶν κοινωνῶν σφραγεῖδι63 σφρ̣αγισθὲν ἐξαγέτω καὶ̣ εἰσαγέτω κτλ.64

One should initially note that these κοινωνοί must be distinguished from the publicani in charge of collecting the customs dues, who are referred to throughout the lex as τελῶναι (ll. 11, 13–14, 19, etc.), or δηµοσιῶναι (ll. 72, 98, 99, etc.).65 While the identity of the κοινωνοί mentioned in line 119 remains rather uncertain,66 that of those with a contract to exploit the mines (τὰ γεωρύχια ἐργολαβέω) poses little problem. As C. Nicolet has remarked: “lorsque notre texte veut précisément nommer les publicains des carrières et des mines (1. 81) pour les protéger contre les douaniers, il les désigne nommément: … κοινωνοῖς τοῖς τὰ γεωρύχια ἠργολαβηκόσιν.”67 However, it 61

Dürrbach and Radet, “Inscriptions,” 268; Kearsley, Greeks and Romans, 31–32, #40. Cf. J. Touloumakos, “Bilingue [Griechisch-Lateinische] Weihinschriften der römischen Zeit,” Tekmeira 1 (1995): 86–87. 62 I.e., “[and] there is to be the right to seizure of a pledge in this [matter] to the partners who have accepted the contract for the mines.” Cottier, Customs, 59. 63 The term is best understood as referring to a lead collar, rather than to a tattoo or a brand. See Christoph Schäfer, “Zur Ϲφραγίϲ von Sklaven in der lex portorii provinciae Asiae,” ZPE 86 (1991): 193–98. 64 I.e., “and he is to export or import this slave branded with the brand of the socii.” Cottier, Customs, 73. 65 As Nicolet indeed explains: “Dans notre texte … δηµοσιώνης désigne presque partout le fermier de la douane, sauf pourtant au paragraphe 33 (1. 74).” Claude Nicolet, “Le monumentum Ephesenum et les dîmes d’Asie,” BCH 115 (1991): 479; repr. in Censeurs et publicains: Économie et fiscalité dans la Rome antique (Paris: Fayard, 2000). 66 Unfortunately, Cottier et al. do not provide any comment on what they understand these κοινωνοί to be, and simply translate socii without any explanation. Knibbe, likewise, simply renders “sociorum (= societatis),” but does not elaborate on what he envisages these societates to be. See Cottier, Customs, 151; Dieter Knibbe, “Lex Portorii Asiae: Versuch einer Wiedergewinnung des Lateinischen Originaltextes des Zollgesetzes der römischen Provinz Asia (ΝΟΜΟΣ ΤΕΛΟΥΣ ΑΣΙΑΣ),” JÖAI 69 (2000): 170. 67 Nicolet, “dîmes,” 470 (emphasis added). Here again, Cottier et al. offer no comment on the identity of these κοινωνοί, even though they suggest socii qui operas in met-

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

163

is not entirely clear whether the same publicani are intended in line 119. Similarly, one is not sure whether the imported or exported slaves belonged to the personnel of the κοινωνοί or were themselves commodities to be traded. Given the nature of the lex, and the levy exemption on slaves brought along for private purpose (ll. 62, 76), the latter option is probably to be preferred. Whatever the case may be, the commercial involvement of the κοινωνοί in this passage can hardly be questioned, which lends some support to the epigraphists’ use of the term socii in their translations. The next two examples are slightly more ambiguous. The first one consists of a dedication for two ἐπιµεληταί (superintendents) by a Delian collegium compitalicium,68 which lists the names of its contributors (IDelos 1764, A.D. 93).69 One of them is designated as: ΑΛΕΞΑΝ∆ΡΟΣ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΩΝ ∆ΕΚ (l. 5). Taking ΚΟΙΝΩΝΩΝ as a nomen, the ed. pr. initially restored: Ἀλέξανδρος Κοινώνων ∆έκ[µου].70 This interpretation is very unlikely, however, since the name Κοινώνων has never been recorded – only names such as Κοινεύς, Κοῖνος, Κο(ι)νώ, Κόν(ν)ος, Κόν(ν)ιον, Κον(ν)ίων, Κόνουν, Κόνων, Κονωνεύς, have been documented in Greece and Asia Minor.71 As J. Hatzfeld has rightly noted: “nous ne voyons pas de quel gentilicium Κοινώνων, qu’on lit avec certitude, peut être la transcription.”72 This led him to conclude that “il y [a] (sic) sans doute ici quelque faute d’écriture.”73 J. and L. Robert, on the other hand, have proposed a more plausible allis as a possibility for the original Latin version. See Cottier, Customs, 59, 134. Cf. Knibbe, “Lex,” 165; H. W. Pleket, and R. S. Stroud, “Ephesos: Customs law, 62 A.D.,” SEG 39.1180, p. 379. On the role of publicans in the concession of mines specifically, see Maria R. Cimma, Ricerche sulle società di publicani (Milan: Giuffrè, 1981), 22–31, 145–53; P. A. Brunt, “Publicans in the Principate,” in Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 396–402. 68 As its name indicates, this was the collegium responsible for the organisation of the ludi compitales. See ed. pr. Pierre Jouguet, “Fouilles du port de Délos: Inscriptions,” BCH 23 (1899): 62, 72. 69 The key to the inscription is found in lines 13–14: κοµπεταλιασταὶ γενόµενοι, Ἡρακλῆν ἀνέθηκαν καὶ καθιέρωσαν; i.e., the kompetaliastai (i.e., members of a collegium compitalicium) dedicated and consecrated (this inscription/monument) in honour of Herakles. Cf. Jouguet, “Fouilles,” 70–72, #15. 70 It is unclear to us whether he understood ΚΟΙΝΩΝΩΝ as a genitive masculine singular (which would be grammatically incorrect) or as a genitive masculine plural (which would be awkward). All other genitives in the inscriptions are singular. 71 See P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews, eds., A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (5 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1987–2012), 1:268–69, 2:269–70, 3A:253–54, 3B:242–43, 4:196–97, 5A:251–52; John S. Traill, Persons of Ancient Athens (vol. 10; Toronto: Athenians, 2001), 499–507; Iohannes Kirchner, Prosopographia attica (vol. 1; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1966), 586–87. Cf. Preisigke, NB, 177–78. 72 Jean Hatzfeld, “Les Italiens résidant à Délos mentionnés dans les inscriptions de l’île,” BCH 36 (1912): 28. 73 Hatzfeld, “Italiens,” 28.

164

Part One: Philological Survey

restoration: Ἀλέξανδρος κοινωνῶν δεκ[άτης], i.e., Alexander, sociorum decumae (servus).74 This inscription would thus seem to provide another “bon exemple des κοινωνοί, publicains, à Delos,” who had the charge of collecting the tithes (decumae).75 The last example can be observed on a fragmentary marble plaque from Cyprus, which was found near the copper mines of Skouriotissa: [ – κοι]| νωνῶν [ – µε]|τά•ων χ̣[αλκοῦ κατὰ τὰς]| κώµας Λα[ – καὶ – καὶ] ‖ Φλασου (ll. 1–4; SEG 30.1658, ca. A.D. II). 76 Although the reading is not entirely certain, T. B. Mitford is probably correct to have concluded that “a local company of contractors” (κοινωνοί, i.e., socii), one that was probably similar to those encountered in the lex portorii Asiae, operated locally and “was employed by the procurator on the mines of these three villages.”77 This designation of publicans by means of the term κοινωνοί is noteworthy, though not so surprising. As far as ancient evidence suggests, no Greek transliteration of the term publicani seems to have existed, so that they were usually referred in inscriptions either as τελῶναι, δηµοσιῶναι, or κοινωνοί.78 The use of the latter term is understandable insofar as the main business strategy of the publicani was to form societates, in which each associate invested some capital and/or human resources (e.g., slaves) and received a share of the profits in return. This enabled them to conduct large business operations, such as the farming of taxes or the provisioning of the army throughout the provinces of the empire.79 Publicani could thus sometimes be labelled by the name of the province in which they operated, e.g., socii Bithyniae (Cicero, Fam. 13.9),80 or they could simply be called socii, i.e., partners of a societas publicanorum.81 A question that remains unanswered, 74 I.e., Alexander, (slave) of the socii (i.e., publicani) for the decuma. See J. and L. Robert, BE (1950): 134, #36. 75 J. and L. Robert, BE (1964): 159, #160. 76 I.e., of the socii (?) in charge of the [copper?] mines [by the] villages of … (?) and Plasou. Ed. pr. M. Markides, “Annual Report of the Curator of Antiquities,” RDAC 1915 (1916): 17, #7. Cf. Terence B. Mitford, ed., The Nymphaeum of Kafizin: The Inscribed Pottery (Kadmos Supplement 2; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980), 41 (n. 1). 77 Terence B. Mitford, “Roman Cyprus,” ANRW 7.2:1327 (n. 177). 78 Mason actually adduces CIL III 447 and IEph 2245 as examples. See Mason, Greek Terms, 35, 61, 92. Cf. Dürrbach and Radet, “Inscriptions,” 267; Dittenberger, OGI 522 (n. 1). 79 This pooling of resources is explained by fact that the concession of taxes, for instance, required a considerable amount to be paid in advance as down payments and securities (praedia) (e.g., five times the amount collected annually), sums which no single individual, not even a senator, would have been able to supply on his own. On the organisation of these societates, see for instance Claude Nicolet, “Deux remarques sur l’organisation des sociétés de publicains à la fin de la République romaine,” in Censeurs et publicains: Économie et fiscalité dans la Rome antique (Paris: Fayard, 2000), 287, 297–319. 80 For a comprehensive list of such societates, see Nicolet, “Deux remarques,” in Censeurs, 315–19. 81 The secondary literature on societates publicanorum/vectigalis is considerable. Standard works remain Kniep, Societas Publicanorum; Venceslaus Ivanov, De societati-

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

165

however, is whether societates publicanorum were also at times designated as κοινωνίαι in Greek.

Beyond the commercial sphere, the term κοινωνός could also describe, more generally, any kind of associate. Thus, in the context of law, it could refer to one who joins with the prosecuting party in a legal action, just as it is encountered once in Demosthenes (e.g., Or. 40.58). This is clearly observed in the treaty on arbitrations between Temnos and Klazomenai (see the above section 5.2.1 on κοινωνέω), which makes mention of κοινωνοὶ τῆς δίκης (SEG 29.1130 bis, Frag. B; cf. SEG 36.1040, 200–150 B.C.).82 The term is also employed several times in funerary inscriptions to identify partners who own a share in a communal tomb. This is plainly illustrated on three tombs from Palmyra, Syria. On the first one, a certain Aurelius acknowledges having taken his brother as a partner to build the family tomb: [Ἰούλιος Αὐ]ρήλιος [Εὐτύχης Ἀγγαίο]υ κοινωνὸν [προσελάβε]το ἐν τῷ ἀναγαί[ῳ…] τοῦ µνηµείο[υ Γάιο]ν Ἰούλιον Ἑρµείαν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ὅ ἀµφότεροι οἰκοδοµήσαντες ἀνενέωσαν ἐξ ἰδίων ἑαυτοῖς καὶ υἱοῖς καὶ υἱωνοῖς (ll. 1– 3; Mon.fun.Palmyre IFC 40, A.D. 237).83 In another inscription, the owner of a tomb explicitly forbids his descendants from sharing the grave with someone else: ἀφιέρωσα υἱοῖς καὶ υἱωνοῖς ἄρσεσι ἐπὶ τῷ κατὰ µηδένα τρόπον κοινωνὸν αὐτοῦ προσλαβεῖν καθ[ὰ ἔγραψα] (ll. 1–2; Mon.fun.Palmyre IF 67, ca. A.D. II–III). 84 The idea conveyed by the expression κοινωνὸν προσλαµβάνω is clearly that of taking an associate in the use (and possibly ownership) of the monument. This interpretation is reinforced by the Palmyrenian terms employed in the inscription, which signify “prendre comme copartageant, associer.”85 Finally, one last inscription on the lintel of a tomb simply describes its occupants as κοινωνοί: κοινων|οὶ Εὐσέβις Κύριος | Ἀδώνης(?) | Βαρσουµας (IGLSyr 4.1977, A.D. 478).86 bus vectigalium publicorum populi Romani (Petropoli, 1910; repr. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1971); Ernst Badian, Publicans and Sinners: Private Enterprise in the Service of the Roman Republic (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1972). Cf. G. Ürögdi, “Publicani,” PWSup 11:1183–1208; Brunt, “Publicans,” 354–432. 82 Ed. pr. Herrmann, “Urkunden,” 71–117. Cf. Piejko, “Temnos,” 95–97. Cf. the expression κοινωνεῖ δίκης µηδεµιᾶς in the same inscription (ll. 16–17) noted in our previous section (5.2.1). 83 I.e., [Julius] Aurelius [Eutyches, son of Haggaios], [took?] as partner in the upper (part) [ – ] of the tomb his brother [Gaius] Julius Hermenas, (tomb) which both built and restored at their own expense for themselves, their sons and grand-sons etc. 84 I.e., I consecrated (this tomb) for my sons and grand-sons, in order that, by no means, they may take a partner, as [I have written]. 85 Michał Gawlikowski, Monuments funéraires de Palmyre (Travaux du Centre d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences 9; Warsaw: Editions scientifiques de Pologne, 1970), 174. 86 I.e., (the) partners (are): Eusebis, Kyrios, Adones, Barsoumas.

166

Part One: Philological Survey

While the socio-economic reality behind these inscriptions is not always easy to determine, these few examples provide good evidence that tombsharing did not solely take place amongst family members, but was also open to partners, or members of an association (cf. IKilikiaBM 2.201 in section 5.2.3 below), through the purchase of a section of the communal tomb/ columbarium or through the payment of membership fees.87 The socalled Roman collegia tenuiorum or funeraticia functioned in much the same way, allotting sections of a tomb to their socii.88 Even if no money was paid, the granting of a share of a tomb would have surely represented a significant privilege. This might be the sense of an inscription from Nicea, in which a certain Gennios and his associates thank a woman named Paulina: Γέννιος | ∆οκιµεὺς | µετὰ τῶν κοινωνῶν εὐχαριστοῦµεν | Παυλείνῃ (ll. 1–4; INikaia 1210, Imperial era).89 The object of their gratitude remains undetermined, but the archeological context rather points to the use of the tomb itself. This is at least what L. Robert understood: “Il me semble qu’il s’agit d’un remerciement de ceux qui ont obtenu de participer à l’utilisation de cette tombe.”90 This does not mean that every κοινωνός mentioned on funerary monuments refers to co-owners or sharers of a tomb, however. For instance, an inscription on the entrance of a large tomb in Cilicia records the right of a certain Neon and his κοινωνοί and µέτοχοι to be laid in the tomb: ἐὰν δὲ θέλωσι οἱ προ|[γε]γρ[αµ]µένοι, ἐξήτω ἐνθεῖναι| vac (?) κοινωνοῖς καὶ µετόχοις | τοῖς µετὰ Νέωνος Νοῦ ἅπασιν ἔδοξε µε|τ̣ έ̣χε̣ιν (+ list of names) (ll.

87

Cf. Waltzing, Étude, 1:468, 481; Gawlikowski, Monuments, 173–76; P. M. Fraser, Rhodian Funerary Monuments (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), 58–70; Nijf, Civic World, 46– 49. Sale prices are usually omitted from these inscriptions, however. Mon.fun.Palmyre IFC 6, which mentions in Palmyrenian the sum of 120 denarii for the sale of a sixth of a tomb, is a rare exception amongst Syrian funerary monuments. 88 This arrangement was very common despite the problem that the ownership of a locus religiosus posed in Roman law. The issue related to whether one owned the place itself or the right to dispose of it (ius sepulchri). See Fernand de Visscher, Le droit des tombeaux romains (Milan: Giuffrè, 1963), 55–60; Crook, Law, 133–38. See also a very informative tryptic from Dacia on the dissolution of such collegium (CIL III, p. 924–925; cf. FIRA2 3.41). For more general information on such collegia, see Waltzing, Étude 1:46–47, 1:141–53, 4:522–27; E. Kornemann, “Collegium,” PW[1] 387–90; John S. Kloppenborg, “Collegia and Thiasoi: Issues in Function, Taxonomy and Membership,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (London: Routledge, 1996), 20–23; Nijf, Civic World, 31–69. For a list of such collegia, see Waltzing, Étude, 4:203–11. 89 I.e., Gennios of Dokimion with his associates gives thanks to Paulina. Ed. pr. W. von Diest and M. Anton, Neue Forschungen im nordwestlichen Kleinasien (Petermanns geographische Mitteilungen Ergänzungsheft 116; Gotha: Justus Perthes, 1895), 11. Cf. Gustave Mendel, “Inscriptions de Bithynie,” BCH 24 (1900): 401, #75. 90 Robert, Hellenica 10 (1955): 61 (n. 1).

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

167

6–10; SEG 20.92, ca. A.D. II). 91 Considering the two-storey monument to be “una tomba in proprietà comune a molti” (i.e., a communal tomb), the ed. pr., followed by L. Robert, initially assumed that “I κοινωνοί e i µέτοχοι … οἱ µετά Νεωνος di lin. 8–9 sono appunto tali compartecipi forse con diritti disuguali” (i.e., co-owners with perhaps unequal rights), while Neon must have been “il capo della famiglia o della società” (i.e., the head of the family or association).92 However, as G. E. Bean and T. B. Mitford later suggested, it is perhaps more likely that these κοινωνοί and µέτοχοι were the business associates of Neon,93 as is often implied by the term µέτοχος or the expression οἱ µετά τινος in documentary sources, especially in papyri (e.g., BGU XVI 2560, 2561). The same remark could probably be made concerning the κοινωνοί of INikaia 1210 mentioned above, who may have simply been trade associates rather than the co-beneficiaries of the use of the tomb. There are, of course, other epigraphical examples of the term κοινωνός which do not bear any particular economic connotation. Most common amongst these are references to political allies (e.g., κοινωνοὶ δήµου Ῥωµαίων; IG II² 3299, A.D. 129–138),94 associates in a benefactor’s civic conduct (IKlaros 1, pp. 11–62, ca. 130–110 B.C.),95 deceased life-partners (e.g., κοινωνέ; SEG 49.1788, IBithDörner 2.119), members of a collegium (IGBulg 1.79 bis, ca. mid-II B.C.),96 or Montanist clerics (IMontan 80, 84, 85; ca. A.D. IV–VI.). The latter were once thought to be bishops who were powerful consors and owners of shares in imperial estates, while serving as 91

I.e., if the aforementioned persons wish to, it shall be permitted (for others?) to be buried (in the tomb). vacat (?) It pleased all the partners and associates of Neon the son of Nos, to share (this tomb). Starting with κοινωνοῖς, lines 8–13 appear to be a later addition. Bean and Mitford thus suggested placing a punctuation mark after ἐνθεῖναι, and understood lines 8–10 as conferring the permission mentioned in lines 6–7 to Neon and his associates listed thereafter. See G. E. Bean and T. B. Mitford, “Sites Old and New in Rough Cilicia,” AnSt 12 (1962): 209–10, #33. 92 Paribeni and Romanelli, “Studii,” 167. Cf. Robert, Hellenica 10 (1955): 61 (n. 1). 93 Bean and Mitford, “Cilicia,” 210. 94 The formula employed in this instance, φίλης συµµάχου κοινωνοῦ (δήµου Ῥωµαίων), is very close to that found in P.Schøyen I 25 (τῷ δήµῳ τῷ ̔Ρωµαίων φιλί[α καὶ συµµαχία κ]αὶ κοινωνία ἔστω). See our discussion in the next section 5.2.3. 95 Taken out of its context, the idea conveyed by the expression ποιήσασθαι κοινωνοὺς τῆς τοῦ βίου προαιρέσεως (ll. 12–13) is difficult to appreciate. In light of the whole inscription, it must signify that Polemaios made his fellow citizens partakers of his good fortune and success in his civic career, by generously providing distributions of sweet wine and various other benefactions. Cf. J. and L. Robert, IKlaros 1, pp. 21–23, 43–47. 96 A similar relief was dedicated to the same hero by a group which identified itself as θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουµήνιον Ζήνιδος (l. 1, IGBulg 1.78 ter). J. and L. Robert understood them to have formed “une association qui tire son nom du banquet religieux, θοίνη, le banquet qu’organise en Laconie et en Messénie la θοιναρµόστρια.” J. and L. Robert, BE (1962): 179, #206. Cf. idem, BE (1965): 131–32, #257.

168

Part One: Philological Survey

patrons of village communities (cf. Cod. theod. 5.16.34).97 However, this view has been convincingly refuted by H. Grégoire,98 so that scholars now mostly agree that they were some kind of clergy officials within the Montanist movement, that is, either some financial benefactors and/or administrators,99 or some regional bishops, as the two references ὁ κοινωνὸς κατὰ τόπον in IMontan 84 and 85 seem to indicate.100 The origins of the title κοινωνός among the Montanists remain obscure. Arguing for a strong Jewish influence over Montanism, M. S. Lieberman posited that the Montanist κοινωνός was the equivalent of the Jewish ḥbr ʻyr regularly mentioned in the rabbinical tradition, i.e., a Jewish community leader with social and religious functions.101 H. Grégoire accepted this explanation but also noted the mystical role of the κοινωνός in treatises such as De ecclesiastica hierarchia, which influenced significantly Byzantine theology from A.D. VI onwards. Therein, the κοινωνός is presented as “l’initié que le hiérarque, au nom de la divine Béatitude, fait participer aux mystères sacrés,”102 who supervises “la communion de ses subordonnés avec Dieu (κοινωνία).”103 Others still have contended that some Montanists were originally called κοινωνοί because they were considered to be companions of Christ’s sufferings in martyrdom (cf. 1 Pet 5:1; Rev 1:9; Mart. Pol. 6:2, 17:3),104 as well as companions of the Spirit (cf. 2 Cor 13:13; Phil 2:1).105 97

Buckler, for instance, understood κατὰ τόπον in IMontan 84 to be referring to a local imperial estate. See W. H. Buckler, “Lydian Records,” JHS 37 (1917): 95–99. 98 No Byzantine bishop, nor any other cleric, has ever been found to have served as the patron of a village, according to Grégoire. Nor has the term κοινωνός ever been found to mean consors. See Henri Grégoire, “Du nouveau sur la hiérarchie de la secte Montaniste d’après une inscription grecque trouvée près de Philadelphie en Lydie,” Byzantion 2 (1925): 329–35; W. M. Calder and Henri Grégoire, “Paulinus, Κοινωνός de Sébaste de Phrygie,” BAB 38 (1952): 167–68. 99 Montanists would have thereby replicated the administrative structure of a civic and/or professional κοινόν/σύνοδος. See for instance F. E. Vokes, “Montanism and the Ministry,” StPatr 9 (1966): 307–309; August Strobel, Das heilige Land der Montanisten: Eine religionsgeographische Untersuchung (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980), 267–74; W. H. C. Frend, “Montanism: A Movement of Prophecy and Regional Identity in the Early Church,” BJRL 70 (1988): 29; Vera-Elisabeth Hirschmann, Horrenda secta: Untersuchungen zum frühchristlichen Montanismus und seinen Verbindungen zur paganen Religion Phrygiens (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2005), 123–38. 100 This is Tabbernee’s view-point, as no scholarly consensus has been reached yet. For an informative and comprehensive review of scholarship on the question see William Tabbernee, “Montanist Regional Bishops: New Evidence from Ancient Inscriptions,” JECS 1.3 (1993): 249–80. Cf. Calder and Grégoire, “Paulinus,” 167–69; Gerd Buschmann, “Χριστοῦ κοινωνός (MartPol 6, 2), das Martyrium und der ungeklärte κοινωνός-Titel der Montanisten,” ZNW 86 (1995): 245–55; Hirschmann, Horrenda, 127–31. 101 Calder and Grégoire, “Paulinus,” 172–73; Tabbernee, “Montanist,” 261–62. 102 Calder and Grégoire, “Paulinus,” 174. Montanus’ close associates and immediate successors, Themiso and Theodotus, may have thus been among the first to be designated by the term. Tabbernee, “Montanist,” 260. 103 Calder and Grégoire, “Paulinus,” 172. 104 See for instance W. H. C. Frend, The Early Church (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1965), 81; Buschmann, “κοινωνός”.

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

169

What is certain is that the term constituted a “titre bien choisi pour désigner une dignité intermédiaire entre celle de patriarche et celle d’évêque” (cf. Jerome, Epist. 41.3; Cod. justin. 1.5.20.3).106 Thus, it identified someone of importance and influence, who was responsible for the transmission of the Montanist tradition and also perhaps for the administration of its communities.107

5.2.3 Κοινωνία As with κοινωνέω, κοινωνία can be used to express a variety of ideas. It can denote participation in contests (κ. τῶν ἀγώνων),108 in sacrifices (κ. τῶν θυσιῶν/ σπονδῶν/ ἱερῶν),109 in the holding of assizes (κ. τῆς ἀγοραίας),110 or in the Panhellenion, i.e., the council of noble representatives from various Greek cities founded by Hadrian around A.D. 130–132 (κ. τοῦ Πανελληνίου/ τοῦ συνεδρίου τῶν Πανελλήνων).111 It can also simply signify marital union (πρὸς γάµου κ.),112 and identify a cultic association,113 or, possibly, 105

Tabbernee, “Montanist,” 263. Calder and Grégoire, “Paulinus,” 175. The Latin manuscripts of Jerome’s epistle have caenonus, cenonos, or cenonas, which Hilberg restored as koinonous. His interpretation is confirmed by the aforementioned epigraphic evidence and by the reference to κοινωνοί in Justinian’s codex. See Isidor Hilberg, ed., Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae (Part 1; Vienna: Tempsky, 1910–1918; repr., New York: Johnson, 1961), 313. 107 Tabbernee, “Montanist,” 249, 267–68. 108 E.g., C. A. Boethius, “Excavations at Mycenae: XI. Hellenistic Mycenae,” ABSA 25 (1921–1923): 408–15. 109 E.g., James H. Oliver, “The Sacred Gerusia,” Hesperia Sup 6 (1941): 125–41, #31 (ca. A.D. 230); SEG 4.247, 250, 255 (ca. II B.C. to A.D. II). 110 E.g., SEG 28.1566 (ca. A.D. 154). The text actually reads τ̣ [ὸ] τοιαύτην κοινωνίαν κ̣ α[ταστῆσαι] (ll. 76–77), which in context can only refer to the assize (τὴν ἀγοραίαν) mentioned in l. 74. Cf. ed. pr. P. M. Fraser and S. Applebaum, “Hadrian and Cyrene,” JRS 40 (1950): 77–87 (ll. 1–49); Joyce Reynolds, “Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and the Cyrenaican Cities,” JRS 68 (1978): 111–21. 111 E.g., SEG 29.127 (ca. A.D. 174/5). Cf. ed. pr. James H. Oliver, “Marcus Aurelius: Aspects of Civic and Cultural Policy in the East,” Hesperia Sup 13 (1970): 1–168. Cf. idem, “Notes on Marcus Aurelius, EM 13366,” ZPE 14 (1974): 265–67; Christopher P. Jones, “A New Letter of Marcus Aurelius to the Athenians,” ZPE 8 (1971): 161–83; W. Williams, “Formal and Historical Aspects of Two New Documents of Marcus Aurelius,” ZPE 17 (1975): 37–56; Simone Follet, “Lettre de Marc-Aurèle aux Athéniens (EM 13366): Nouvelles lectures et interprétations,” RPh 105 (1979): 29–43. On the Attic Panhellenion specifically, see Oliver, “Marcus,” 92–138. Cf. Anthony J. S. Spawforth, “Panhellenion, Attic,” OCD3, pp. 1105–1106. 112 E.g., IPriene 109 (ca. 120 B.C.); CIL III 14184.9 (Roman era); Herrmann-Malay, Lydia 52 (Roman era). 113 See, for instance, the dedication to Zeus Megas Sarapis by an unidentified κοινωνία (IRT 310, ca. A.D. II–III), or that to Priapos by a κοινωνία Λαµψακίων (IG XIV.102, date unknown). Cf. Franck Prêteux, “Priapos Bébrykès dans la Propontide et les détroits: Succès d’un mythe local,” REG 118 (2005): 252 (n. 34); Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ, 23. See also the possible reference to an athletic association in IPriene 114 (ca. 84 B.C.). 106

170

Part One: Philological Survey

a community, 114 in which case it would have a sense rather close to that of τὸ κοινόν. In a civic context, it can often acquire the specific connotation of political alliance or union, which is a form of partnership, or political community. This is particularly evident in the treaty between Rome and the Lycians (P.Schøyen I 25; 46 B.C.), in which κοινωνία completes the formula amicorum et sociorum, φιλία καὶ συµµαχία, commonly employed in Roman foedera to express “eternal peace and friendship between the respective parties”115: τῷ δήµῳ τῷ ̔Ρωµαίων καὶ τῷ κοινῷ τῶν λυκίων φιλί|[α καὶ συµµαχία κ]α̣ ὶ κοινωνία τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον ἀσφαλὴς καὶ ἀµετάθετος ἔστωι κτλ. (ll. 6–7).116 The addition of κοινωνία to the formula is, to the best of 114 E.g., IDidyma 159 (ca. A.D. 287–293). See also the honorific inscription for P. Caelius Lucianus, who adjudicated in the local courts of the κοινων[ία] (IGRR 3.409, ca. A.D. II). The reading has since then been questioned by Bean (κ[οινωνία]) and Reinach. The exact sense of κοινωνία here would in any case remain unclear. Rostovtzeff suggested that it might stand for an imperial estate, a saltus, in which villages were (loosely) organised as a κοινόν (perhaps the commune Milyadum alluded to by Cicero, Verr. 2.1. 95), since it did not have the legal constitution of a polis or colonia. This view was later contested by Hirschfeld and Broughton, however. It is actually clear from references to βουλευταί, ἐκκλησιασταί, πολεῖται, quinquennial games and local courts, that the city had all the democratic attributes of a Graeco-Roman polis. On the basis of another Hellenistic decree discovered nearby, Bean concluded that Pogla had the status of a city long before A.D. II and was therefore, most likely, not an imperial estate (contra Rostovtzeff). Still, Bean’s approval of Wilhelm’s explanation that κοινωνία signifies here “Kollekte als Zeichen der Teilnahme,” just as in Rom 15:26, is questionable. What could be the sense of he adjudicated in local courts by years of the collection? To what institution could it refer? See M. I. Rostovtzeff, “Die Domäne von Pogla,” JÖAI 4 (1900): 37–46; Otto Hirschfeld, “Der Grundbesitz der römischen Kaiser in der ersten drei Jahrhunderten: Die kaiserlichen Domägen,” Klio 2 (1902): 301 (n. 5); T. Reinach, REG 17 (1904): 258; Adolf Wilhelm, “Wortschatz,” 81–82; T. R. S. Broughton, “Roman Landholding in Asia Minor,” TAPA 65 (1934): 229–30; G. E. Bean, “Notes and Inscriptions from Pisidia: Part II,” AnSt 10 (1960): 59–61, #104; Barbara Levick, “Pogla, Stadt im südwestlichen Kleinasien,” PWSup 14:413–27. 115 Mitchell, “Treaty,” 186. For similar treaties in which the phrase or one of the terms appear, see for instance SEG 35.823 (Maroneia, ca. 167 B.C.), IG XII 3.173 (Astypalaea, 105 B.C.), SIG 732 (Thyrrheum, 94 B.C.), SIG 764 (Mytilene, 46 B.C.), IKnidos 1.33 (45 B.C.). For a complete list and comprehensive bibliography, see Mitchell, “Treaty,” 173–75. Cf. Täubler’s detailed study and Gruen’s helpful discussion of Roman foedera with Greek cities. Eugen Täubler, Imperium Romanum: Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Römischen Reichs (Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1913), 44–98, 450–58; Erich S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (2 vols; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 731–45; Christof Schuler, “Ein Vertrag zwischen Rom und den Lykiern aus Tyberissos,” in Griechische Epigraphik in Lykien: Eine Zwischenbilanz (ed. C. Schuler; Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007), 51– 79. 116 I.e., let there be unfailing and immutable friendship, [and (political) alliance], and (political) community (or union), (between) the Roman people and the Lycian koinon for

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

171

our knowledge, found in no other documentary or literary sources.117 Its occurrence here may be explained by the fact that foedus phraseology could somewhat vary, although φιλία and συµµαχία, two crucial terms in foedera, were almost always included.118 This example illustrates quite well that κοινωνία could also be suitably applied to a political register. Interestingly, a similar construction is observed in the thirty-second paragraph of the Res Gestae, in which πρεσβειῶν καὶ φιλίας κοινωνία renders legationum et amicitiae commercium: πλεῖστά τε ἄλλα ἔθνη πεῖραν ἔ[λὰ]|βεν δήµου Ῥωµαίων πίστεως ἐπ᾽ ἐµοῦ ἡγεµόν[ο]ς|, οἷς τὸ πρὶν οὐδεµία ἦν πρὸς δῆµον Ῥωµαίων πρεσ‖βειῶν καὶ φιλίας κοινωνία (col. 6, ll. 8–11; CIG 4040, ca. A.D. 19).119 The translation of commercium as κοινωνία appears to be rather awkward at first, if the literal significance of commercium is retained, i.e., trade, traffic, commerce. It is indeed more likely that the general sense of exchange, intercourse, or even stipulation, treaty, was intended originally. 120 While scholars have usually understood the notion of exchange or interchange (of friendship and embassies) to be the focus here,121 κοινωνία φιλίας could equally refer to a political partnership or an alliance of friendship in this context. This seems to be the sense of a similar collocation in Demosthenes’ third Philippic oration, in which he deplores the fact that the Greeks were unable to ally against the threat of Philip of Macedon: καὶ ταῦθ’ ὁρῶντες οἱ Ἕλληνες ἅπαντες καὶ ἀκούοντες οὐ πέµποµεν πρέσβεις περὶ τούτων πρὸς ἀλλήλους κἀγανακτοῦµεν … ὥστ’ ἄχρι τῆς τήµερον ἡµέρας οὐδὲν οὔτε τῶν συµφερόντων οὔτε τῶν δεόντων πρᾶξαι δυνάµεθα, οὐδὲ συστῆναι, οὐδὲ κοινωνίαν βοηθείας καὶ φιλίας οὐδεµίαν all time, [without] wicked [treachery] etc. For a lengthy discussion and commentary, see the ed. pr. Mitchell, “Treaty.” Cf. S. Follet, AE 2005 (2008): 514–21, #1487. 117 But see the inscription discovered in Athens on a rotunda dedicated to Hadrian by the city of Laodikea ad Mare (Syria): φίλης συµµάχου κοινωνοῦ δήµου Ῥωµαίων (IG II² 3299, A.D. 129–138). 118 Mitchell, “Treaty,” 187, 193. 119 I.e., and many other nations experienced the trust of the Roman people during my principate, (nations) who before had never had any alliance of embassies and friendship with the Roman people. It must be noted, however, that in P.Schøyen I 25 φιλία and κοινωνία are in apposition, while here the genitive φιλίας is dependent on κοινωνία. 120 OLD, s.v. commercium, 363; Lewis-Short, s.v. commercium II., 378. 121 See Res Gestae 6.32 (Shipley, LCL); P. A. Brunt and J. M. Moore, eds., Res gestae divi Augusti: The Achievements of the Divine Augustus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), 35; Sarolta A. Takács, “The Res Gestae of Augustus,” in The Age of Augustus (ed. W. Eck; Malden: Blackwell, 2003), 146; John Scheid, Res gestae divi Augusti: Hauts faits du divin Auguste (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2007), 23 (“relation diplomatique”); Edwin A. Judge, “Augustus in the Res Gestae,” in The First Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament Essays (ed. J. R. Harrison; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 218; Alison E. Cooley, ed., Res gestae divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 96–97, 254–55.

172

Part One: Philological Survey

ποιήσασθαι (Or. 9.28).122 In context, the idea conveyed is surely that of the combination of political will and military power to withstand the enemy, that is, of “ein[em] gemeinsam[en] Freundschaftsvertrag zur gegenseitigen Hilfeleistung.”123 The political connotation of κοινωνία appears in two other imperial letters written to Aphrodisias and to Nicopolis ad Istrum, in which the advent of the joint-rule of Emperor Severus with his two sons Caracalla and Geta is announced. The first one praises the Aphrodisians for their celebration of Caracalla’s accession to power (at about ten years old): ἡσθέντας ὑµᾶς ἐπὶ τῷ τοὺς θρασυνοµένους [βαρ]βάρους νενεικῆσ[θα]ι̣ καὶ πᾶσαν [τὴν οἰκου]µ[ένην ἐν εἰρήνῃ γεγενῆσ]|θαι σφόδρα ἔπρεπεν εὐφρανθῆναι τῆς πατρῴας κοινωνίας εἰς ἐµὲ Ἀντωνεῖνον ἡκούσης [ – – ] κτλ. (ll. 2–3; IAphrodArchive 18, A.D. 198).124 Whilst the text is quite convoluted, the reference to co-rulership is unmistakable.125 It is confirmed by a second letter which alludes to Geta’s endowment with imperial power (at nine years old), after the defeat of the Parthian forces in A.D. 197: οὕτως ἐδηλώσατε τοῖς | παροῦσιν συνησθέντες καὶ δηµοσίαν ἀγα‖γόντες ἑορτὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς τῶν ἡµετέρων ἀγαθῶν [εὐ]|ανγέλµασι εἰρήνης τε πανδήµου πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ὑπαρχούσης τῇ τῶν ἀεὶ θρασυν[ο]|µένων περὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν βαρβάρων ἥττῃ καὶ ἡµῶν ἐ[ν]| δικαίαι κοινωνίαι συνεζευγµένων, καίσαρα ‖ ἐχόντων οἰκεῖον καὶ γνήσιον (ll. 24–31; IGBulg 2.659, A.D. 198).126 Inscriptions in which κοινωνία denotes a business partnership, or even a commercial organisation, are admittedly rather rare. Still, there are a number of significant examples that require our careful consideration. The ear122

I.e., and we, Greeks, all see and hear these matters, and yet do not send ambassadors concerning these to one another and express our indignation … so that, to this very day, we can do nothing of what is beneficial or required (of us); we can neither unite, nor can we form any partnership of help and of friendship. 123 Hermann Bengtson, ed., Die Verträge der griechisch-römischen Welt von 700 bis 338 v. Chr. (vol. 2 of Die Staatsverträge des Altertums; Munich: C. H. Beck, 1962), 332. 124 I.e., while you delighted at the victory over the arrogant barbarians and the [establishment of the] whole [world in peace?], it was greatly appropriate that you celebrated (with a banquet) the advent of my father’s (political) partnership (i.e., joint rule) with me, Antoninus, etc. 125 Reynolds, IAphrodArchive 18, thus translated: “it was most appropriate that you … celebrated the coming of joint rule shared with my father to me, Antoninus”; while Oliver rendered: “You … very properly rejoiced that the partnership with my father had come to me, Antoninus.” Oliver, Constitutions, 443–44, #281. 126 I.e., so you have plainly rejoiced in the present (circumstances) by organising public festivals for the good news of our benevolence and of the universal peace available to all mankind, because of the defeat of the arrogant barbarians, who were constantly attacking our empire, and our joining together in a righteous partnership, having a Caesar (i.e., Geta) who is legitimate and from our house. Cf. Oliver, Constitutions, 438–41, #217.

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

173

liest epigraphic reference to κοινωνία could well constitute one such piece of evidence. It consists of a V B.C. archaic law from Lyttos, Crete, which appears to make mention of the communal gathering (κοιναωνίας) and separation (συνκρίσιος) of sheep, cattle, and swine, on carefully delineated properties (whose boundaries are detailed in ll. 5–14, albeit not very intelligibly as the text is fragmented): Ἔϝαδε | Λυκτίοισι | τᾶς κοιναωνίας | καὶ τᾶ(ς) συνκρίσιος | τ[ῶν προβ]άτων | καὶ τῶν καρταιπόδων | καὶ τᾶν ὐῶν | ὄρο(ν) µὲν ἦµεν | τόνδε· κτλ. (Frag. B, ll. 1–4; INomima 12).127 Dismissing the possibility that the law might be imposing transhumance regulations, the edd. pr., M. and H. Van Effenterre, initially posited that it related to a temporary resolution by the citizenry against the aristocracy, which purported to confiscate its livestock and institute collective ownership of the animals (κοιναωνία).128 S. Link objected to this interpretation and suggested, on the basis of the second part of the inscription, that κοιναωνία did not refer to communally-owned herds and cattle, but to the “Gemeinschaftsbesitz an Land,” i.e., “das öffentliche Land” on which the animals of landless farmers could be pastured together by hired shepherds.129 A. Chaniotis also rejected the explanation of M. and H. Van Effenterre, arguing that “evidence for large scale public ownership of herds in ancient Crete [was] lacking.”130 Instead, he contended that “the inscription from Lyttos may reflect a practice analogous to those attested in modern Crete,” whereby livestock owners form seasonal partnerships and/or employ shepherds in order to pasture their animals together, subsequently sharing in the 127 I.e., it pleased the Lyktians: as regards the gathering and separating of [sheep], cattle, and swines, the boundary will be as follows: etc. (ensues a fragmented list of directions delineating the assembling area). The substantive τᾶς κοιναωνίας corresponds to a “forme non contracte de la diphtongue,” while ἦµεν is an infinitive. The sense of συνκρίσιος (i.e., συγκρίσεις) is more difficult to ascertain. It basically signifies to combine, to gather (cf. LSJ, s.v., σύγκρισις), but without the prefix συν the verb κρίνω usually means to distinguish, to separate, which was probably the sense intended here. See ed. pr. Micheline and Henri Van Effenterre, “Nouvelles lois archaïques de Lyttos,” BCH 109.1 (1985): 167, 172, 183 (n. 100). 128 M. and H. Van Effenterre surmised that the aristocracy would have progressively accumulated most of the arable land and turned it into pastures, which was then tended by a servile and immigrant work force. As the xenelasia measures of text A seem to indicate, the citizenry would have then challenged this economic monopoly and resolved to expel the immigrants and fine those citizens harbouring them. Van Effenterre, “Lyttos,” 183–85. 129 Stefan Link, Landverteilung und Sozialer Frieden im archaischen Griechenland (Historia 69; Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1991), 118. Koerner and Hallof share a similar opinion. Reinhard Koerner and Klaus Hallof, eds., Inschriftliche Gesetzestexte der frühen griechischen Polis (Cologne: Böhlau, 1993), 330–32, #88. 130 Angelos Chaniotis, “Problems of ‘Pastoralism’ and ‘Transhumance’ in Classical and Hellenistic Crete,” Orbis Terrarum 1 (1995): 46.

174

Part One: Philological Survey

gains and losses.131 For instance, according to the most common type of agreement (κυρίως κοινιάτο), “two or more owners contribute an equal number of animals (sheep and goats) to build a common herd,” so as to “carry the cost jointly and share the profit.” 132 Drawing from modern anthropological evidence such as this, Chaniotis thus proposed that, at Lyttos, owners may have gathered together flocks to common areas before despatching them to their respective pastures. Whilst the legal intricacies of such partnerships remain unclear, Chaniotis’ hypothesis certainly offers a plausible explanation. As we shall see in our investigation of the papyri, similar examples of agricultural cooperation were in fact quite common in Egypt throughout antiquity. This being said, κοιναωνία here is perhaps not to be considered as denoting an actual partnership, even though the act of assembling and having animals graze together must have necessitated a degree of consensus between herd owners and shepherds. Crossing over to rural Cyprus, we encounter more suggestive evidence on pottery fragments from the Nymphaeum of Kafizin (ca. 225 B.C.).133 Four vases in particular make specific reference to Zenon and Androklos’ κοινωνία of flax and seeds.134 The artefacts IKafizin 119 and 265, for instance, bear legible inscriptions recording Zenon’s offerings to the nymph:

131

Chaniotis, “Pastoralism,” 48. Chaniotis, “Pastoralism,” 47. Four more types of partnership are found: 1) a shepherd pastures a herd on behalf of an owner for 4–5 years, bearing half of the grazing costs and claiming half of the produce of meat, milk, and wool (άποκοψιάρικο κοινιάτο); 2) an owner entrusts his herd to a shepherd, who repays him the value of the animals from the produce of the herd over the next two to three years, after which he can keep half of the animals (ξεχαρτζιστό κοινιάτο); 3) an owner hires a shepherd to graze his herd for a determined period, after which the shepherd must return the herd in the same condition as he received it originally (κεφαλιοπύρωτα); 4) several owners group their animals together to form one common herd and share the associated costs and profits (µαξουλοσιµµίσιακο). 133 Technically speaking, these ostraca should be included in the papyrological section. However, inasmuch as they were initially published by an epigraphist and have since then been included in the PHI database, we shall treat them in this section. In any case, a strict division between papyrological and epigraphic materials can somewhat be arbitrary and impractical. See John Bodel, ed., Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient History from Inscriptions (London: Routledge, 2001), 2–3; Roger S. Bagnall, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), xvii. 134 Mitford suggests κοινωνία as a possible reading for IKafizin 120, 161, 165, 181, 184, 218, 291, but these restorations are conjectural (in some cases, highly conjectural), as Pouilloux has also noted. Jean Pouilloux, “Le dernier livre de T. B. Mitford,” RPh 108 (1982): 101. 132

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

175

IKafizin 119 (l. 1): ἀπὸ τῆς Ζήν[ο]νος κοινονί[ας το̑ν λίνο]ν135 κα[ὶ το]ῦ σπέρµατος.136 IKafizin 265 (l. 5): [ἀπὸ] τῆς Ζ[ήνον]ος κοινονίας vac το̑ν λίν[ο]ν καὶ τοῦ σπέρµατ[ος].137

Similarly, on IKafizin 217 and 219, a certain Onesagoras offers tithes to the nymph on behalf of, or through the favour of, Androklos’ κοινωνία: IKafizin 217 (l. 1): χ(άριτ)ι138 Ἀνδρό(κλο)υ̣ κοινονίας τ[ο̑ν λ]ίνον καὶ [τοῦ σπέρµατος Νύµφ]ηι τῇ … Ὀνησαγόρας Φιλουνίο[υ] δεκατη[φόρος139 – – ].140 IKafizin 219 (l. 1): [χ(άριτ)]ι Ἀνδρό(κλο)υ κοινονίας τοῦ … [Ὀνησαγόρας Φιλουνίου] κουρεὺς141 ὁ δηκατεφόρος Νύµφῃ [τῆι] κτλ.142

T. B. Mitford, the ed. pr., initially assumed that these offerings were drawn from the revenues of the κοινωνία, and thus constituted “ex-voto offerings” whose purpose was to repay “the company’s indebtedness to its patroness.”143 However, without a clearer archaeological and socio-historical context, it remains quite difficult to determine the exact nature of this κοινωνία, which played a vital role in the cult of the local Nymph, and the extent of its activities. One might presume that it consisted of a professional and/or cultic association, but such groups were rarely called a

135

Although one would expect the genitive τοῦ λίνου here, the genitive singular of ὁ λίνος is actually τῶ λίνω or τῶ λίνων in the ancient Cypriote dialect. See K. Hadjioannou, “Review of T. B. Mitford, The Nymphaeum of Kafizin,” RDAC (1982): 257. 136 I.e., from Zenon’s company of [flax] and seed. 137 I.e., [from] Zenon’s company of flax and seed. 138 According to Mitford, this is “the obvious expansion of ΧΙ,” an abbreviation which “was doubtless a business usage, borrowed from the company’s books.” Mitford, Nymphaeum, 160. 139 The exact signification of this term remains debated. It could either refer to the giver of the tithe (to the nymph), or to the receiver/collector of the tithe on behalf of the nymph. Mitford rejected the idea that Onesagoras “gave the Nymph a tenth of the profits from his own industry.” For J. Pouilloux, he may have assumed both responsibilities: “il est chargé de prélever une dîme et il en fait offrande à la divinité.” Bingen concurred: “δηκατεφόρος désigne la fonction religieuse d’Onèsagoras à Kafizin, l’homme qui présente les offrandes à la déesse.” Mitford, Nymphaeum, 256; Pouilloux, “Mitford,” 100; Jean Bingen, “Review of T. B. Mitford, The Nymphaeum of Kafizin,” CE 57 (1982): 171. 140 I.e., by favour (?) of Androklos’ company of flax and [seed] to the [Nymph] … Onesagoras, son of Philounios, the dekatephoros (i.e., giver or collector of the tithe). 141 This figure seems to have been a barber associated with the cult of the nymph, perhaps one of the “barbiers sacrés,” as Pouilloux and Masson suspected – a view contested by Bingen. See Pouilloux, “Mitford,” 100; Olivier Masson, “À propos des inscriptions chypriotes de Kafizin,” BCH 105 (1981): 635; Bingen, “Mitford,” 170. Cf. Mitford, Nymphaeum, 261–62. 142 I.e., [by favour?] of Androklos’ company … [Onesagoras the son of Philonios?] the barber collecting/offering the tithe (?) to [the] Nymph etc. 143 Mitford, Nymphaeum, 259. Cf. ibid., 54.

176

Part One: Philological Survey

κοινωνία in inscriptions.144 As F. Poland once remarked: “κοινωνία wird nie vom Verein, sondern nur von der ‘societas’ gebraucht.”145 Rather, professional and cultic associations were usually designated as κοινόν, θίασος, σύνοδος, ἔρανος, etc.146 Furthermore, professional associations were normally identified by their activities, and not by the name of their principal benefactor(s), as I. Dittmann-Schöne has observed: “die Vereinsnamen [sind] charakterisiert durch die Verbindung eines abstrakten Substantivs, das sich auf die gemeinsame Organisation bezieht, mit einem konkreten Substantiv im Genitiv Plural, das den Namen des von den Mitgliedern ausgeübten Berufes wiedergibt.”147 In this instance, however, the κοινωνία is repeatedly associated with two names, either Zenon or Androklos, who appear to have been its owners (rather than its patrons). Alternatively, the allusion to the οἶκος Ἀνδρόκλου in other fragments appears to suggest that it consisted of a family business (e.g., IKafizin 283, 263). For Mitford, this οἶκος in fact represented the “headquarters” of the κοινωνία, whose “leading partner” and “eponym” was Zenon, while Onesagoras served as its “managing director.”148 Mitford also envisaged that these two capitalists maintained close contacts with other associates mentioned in the fragments (cf. IKafizin 236: ἀνθ᾽ ἁπάντων): “they describe

144

See IRT 310 (ca. A.D. II–III), IG XIV.102 (date unknown), and IDidyma 159 (ca. A.D. 287–293), mentioned earlier, however. See also Isaeus, Or. 9.30, where θίασος is synonymous with κοινωνία. Cf. Endenburg, Koinoonia, 138–39. For Pouilloux, it simply consisted of “une ‘communauté’ dite de Zénon” here. Pouilloux, “Mitford,” 101. 145 One ought to keep in mind that Poland had access to a much more limited corpus of inscriptional evidence than what is now available. See Franz Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens (Leipzig: Teubner, 1909; repr. Zentral-Antiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 1967), 164 (n. †). 146 For detailed studies of the various types and names of such associations, see M. P. Foucart, Des associations religieuses chez les Grecs: Thiases, Éranes, Orgéons (Paris: Klincksieck, 1873), 1–5; Erich Ziebarth, Das griechische Vereinswesen (Leipzig: S. Hirzei, 1896; repr., Wiesbaden: M. Sändig, 1969), 133–40; Poland, Vereinswesens, 5–172; Kloppenborg, “Collegia,” in Voluntary Associations, 16–29; Imogen Dittmann-Schöne, Die Berufsvereine in den Städten des kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasiens (Regensburg: S. Roderer, 2001), 15–25; Carola Zimmermann, Handwerkervereine im griechischen Osten des Imperium Romanum (Mainz: Römisch-germanisches Zentralmuseum, 2002), 23–45. Cf. LSJ, s.v. κοινός II.2, θίασος 2; σύνοδος 3; ἔρανος III. Ziebarth and San Nicolò do make reference to κοινωνίαι, but only as Wirtschaftsgenossenschaft or Gesellschaftsvertrag (i.e., societas), and not as Verein. See Ziebarth, Vereinswesen, 13–14; Mariano San Nicolò, Ägyptisches Vereinswesen zur Zeit der Ptolemäer und Römer (vol. 1; Munich: C. H. Beck, 1913), 150–51. 147 Dittmann-Schöne, Berufsvereine, 15. 148 Mitford, Nymphaeum, 92. His name appears in “no less than 268 inscriptions.” Ibid., 253–55.

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

177

themselves as partners, κοινωνοί (291);149 they speak hopefully of their common labours, κοινῆς ἐργασίας (145c); they attend company meetings, κοινὰς συνόδος (228).”150 Eventually, he deduced, somewhat anachronistically, that Zenon’s κοινωνία fulfilled the role of “middle-man and wholesaler: it held stocks, it speculated, it made deals,” whose profits enabled it to invest into a pottery business (which explains the many pottery fragments discovered).151 Mitford further surmised that this κοινωνία somewhat functioned as a tax-farming company, in which Onesagoras, the δηκατεφόρος, had bought shares, so that he owned the right to exact tithes on the production and commerce of flax and linseed throughout the region.152 There is little doubt that, as J. Bingen and J. Pouilloux have noted, Mitford let his imagination stretch beyond the evidence in his reconstruction of the socio-economic situation of the Nymphaeum, which, in several aspects, is made to resemble a Ptolemaic context.153 As Bingen assured: “Sur nos vases et pots, il n’y a pas la moindre trace objective d’une ferme fiscale de la dîme … Et chose remarquable, le nom de Zénon … n’apparaît que deux fois et en rapport avec la production ou le commerce du lin, et non avec le δεκατισµός.”154 Bingen thus dissociated the activities of the κοινωνία from the δηκατεφόρος Onesagoras, suggesting that “[l]a notion de ‘dîme’ a pu être ici plus symbolique que quantitative.”155 These observations aside, there is no particular reason not to consider this κοινωνία as some sort of commercial organisation.156 A similar economic connotation of κοινωνία may also be found in the eighth clause of a senatus consultum (SC) concerning the city of Thisbae in Boeotia: (VII) Ὡσαύτως περὶ ὧν οἱ αὐτοὶ Θισβεῖς ἐνεφάνισαν περὶ σίτου καὶ ἐλ[αί]|ου ἑαυτοῖς κοινωνίαν πρὸς Γναῖον Πανδοσῖνον γεγονέναι, περὶ τού| [του] τοῦ πράγµατος, [ἐ]ὰν κριτὰς λαβεῖν βούλωνται, τούτοις κριτὰς δο[ῦ]| ναι ἔδοξεν (ll. 53–56; IG VII 2225, 170 B.C.).157 Without precise contextual 149 Mitford’s restoration is rather conjectural at this point: οἴκ[ου τοῦδε το̑ν κοιν]ο̣ νο̑ν Ἀνδρόκλου κόµη[ς ἔν]θα (l. 1, IKafizin 291). Cf. Pouilloux, “Mitford,” 100, who is particularly sceptical about this restoration. 150 Mitford, Nymphaeum, 256. 151 Mitford, Nymphaeum, 258. Cf. Ibid., 259–60. 152 Mitford, Nymphaeum, 256–57. 153 Bingen is unequivocal: “Le milieu socio-économique auquel appartient Onèsagoras est imaginé par Mitford en combinant trop d’hypothèses (chap. 3, The Company of Zenon, pp. 256–258).” Bingen, “Mitford,”170. Cf. Pouilloux, “Mitford,” 101. 154 Bingen, “Mitford,” 171. 155 Bingen, “Mitford,” 171. 156 Cf. Masson, “Kafizin,” 627, 630; H. W. Pleket and R. S. Stroud in SEG 30.1608. 157 I.e., similarly, the same Thisbaeans have declared that a partnership (societas?) has been established between them and Cn. Pandosinus concerning (the provision of?) grain and oil, on this matter it has been decided that judges are to be appointed for them, if they so wish. Ed. pr. M. P. Foucart, “Rapport sur un sénatus-consulte inédit de l’année

178

Part One: Philological Survey

information, it is quite difficult to determine the legal and economic nature of this κοινωνία established between the Thisbaeans and a certain Cn. Pandosinus, who was most probably a native freedman from Pandosia in southern Italy. 158 What is apparent, though, is that the Thisbaeans’ embassy to Rome had made mention of the grievances caused by the negotiator to the senate, which had agreed to appoint arbiters to adjudicate the dispute.159 Following somewhat T. Mommsen’s interpretation,160 F. F. Abbott and A. C. Johnson opined that Pandosinus “had leased a part of the public lands of Thisbe, paying a certain percentage of the yield in grain and oil to the municipal treasury as rental” (cf. Dig. 17.2.52.2; Cato, Agr. 136).161 However, this contract would need to have been agreed prior to 171 B.C., since “the ager Thisbaeorum had become ager publicus in 170 B.C., after the surrender of the city,”162 when the praetor C. Lucretius, in a show of force, had encamped outside its walls (ll. 22–24).163 M. P. Foucart, the ed. pr., had in fact already noted this difficulty and had insisted that, in compliance with the Romans’ understanding of deditio,164 the city and all its territories, properties, and citizens, would have 170 relatif à la ville de Thisbé,” ArchMiss 7 (1872): 322–79. Republished in SIG 646; Michel 69; Fontes 37; FIRA2 1.31; Sherk 2. Cf. Johannes Schmidt, “Nachträge zum Senatsbeschluss über Thisbae,” MDAI (A) 4 (1879): 235–49; idem, “Die Senatsbeschlüsse über die Thisbäer vom Jahre 170 v. Chr.,” ZRG 2 (1881): 116–34; M. P. Foucart, “Sénatus-consulte de Thisbé (170),” MAI 37.2 (1906): 305–46. 158 Pandosia in Bruttium is of course to be understood, and not Pandosia in Epirus. See Foucart, “Rapport,” 369; G. Dittenberger, SIG 646 (l. 54), n. 26; Abbott and Johnson, Administration, 256. 159 Similar complaints against abusive negotiatores were not unusual, but accompanied Roman expansion throughout Greece in the late II B.C. Foucart, “Rapport,” 369. 160 Mommsen had deduced: “Eiusmodi contractum [i.e., societatis] res publica Thisbaeorum cum homine Italico ita facere potuit, ut fundos suos ei arandos traderet ea condicione, ut frumenti oleique certa pars ad se pertineret” (i.e., thereby, the res publica of the Thisbaeans could make a contract with the Italian man, so as to entrust to him their arable land under the condition that a certain portion of the grain and oil may belong to them). Theodor Mommsen, “XV. S.C. de Thisbaeis A.V.C. DLXXXIV,” Ephemepi 1 (1872): 298; repr. in Gesammelte Schriften 8 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1913). 161 Abbott and Johnson, Administration, 256. Cf. G. Dittenberger, SIG 646 (l. 54), n. 26; Schmidt, “Senatsbeschlüsse,” 133. 162 Sherk 2, p. 30. Note: the year of capture is more likely to have been 171 B.C. See Allan C. Johnson, Paul R. Coleman-Norton, Franck C. Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes: A Translation with Introduction, Commentary, Glossary, and Index (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961), 28–29. 163 ll. 22–24: πρὸ τοῦ ἢ Γάϊος Λοκρέ|τιος τὸ στρατόπεδον πρὸς τὴν πόλιν Θίσβας προσήγα|γεν (i.e., before the time when Gaius Lucretius moved his camp in front of the city of Thisbae). Cf. Foucart, “Sénatus-consulte,” 322–23. 164 Livy’s description of the surrender of Collatia to the legendary king L. Tarquinius Priscus offers a telling example: rex interrogavit: “Estisne vos legatis oratoresque missi a populo Collatino, ut vos populumque Collatinum dederetis?”“Sumus.” “Estne populus

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

179

had to pass into the potestas of the Romans,165 so that Pandosinus would not have been able to rent any land from the Thisbaeans then.166 Dismissing the (other) possibility that Pandosinus may have formed a pactio with the city for the collection of grain and oil tithes (decumae),167 Foucart envisaged instead that the term κοινωνία referred to “un contrat de société,”168 whereby Pandosinus would assist the Thisbaeans in supplying the army standing-by with grain and oil.169 In 71 B.C., the city of Gytheion would resort to a similar scheme and appeal to two generous benefactors to help them meet the rapacious demands of the praetores for grain, clothing, and money (SIG 748).170 Likewise, the city of Butrint in Epirus would receive the assistance of T. Pomponius Atticus when threatened by Caesar with land confiscations (allegedly because of unpaid taxes). Atticus, who had some business interests and owned properties in the area since about 68 B.C. (cf. Cicero, Att. 1.5.7),171 offered to pay the amount and then petitioned Caesar to abandon his plan to make the city a colony (Cicero, Att. 16.16a).172 Collatinus in sua potestate?” “Est.” “Deditisne uos populumque Collatinum, urbem, agros, aquam, terminos, delubra, utensilia, diuina humanaque omnia, in meam populique Romani dicionem?” “Dedimus.” “At ego recipio” (Livy, Hist. 1.38). Cf. Polybius, Hist. 36.4: οἱ γὰρ διδόντες αὑτοὺς εἰς τὴν Ῥωµαίων ἐπιτροπὴν διδόασι πρῶτον µὲν χώραν τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν αὐτοῖς καὶ πόλεις τὰς ἐν ταύτῃ, σὺν δὲ τούτοις ἄνδρας καὶ γυναῖκας τοὺς ὑπάρχοντας ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ καὶ ταῖς πόλεσιν ἅπαντας, ὁµοίως ποταµούς, λιµένας, ἱερά, τάφους, συλλήβδην ὥστε πάντων εἶναι κυρίους Ῥωµαίους, αὐτοὺς δὲ τοὺς διδόντας ἁπλῶς µηκέτι µηδενός. For a comprehensive study of deditio treaties, see Täubler, Imperium, 14–28. 165 Naturally, deditio and occupation of land went hand in hand. See Täubler, Imperium, 15–16. 166 This is made evident in the first clause of the SC, which relates to the redditio of all seized public land, mountains, harbours, and public revenues, by the Romans (ll. 18– 20). Cf. Foucart, “Rapport,” 347–48. 167 Foucart ruled out this option for three main reasons: 1) it was unlikely that the decuma was meant by the term κοινωνία; 2) war was not over yet, and the new taxation policy would have been difficult to implement; 3) if the matter had been concerned with the collection of taxes, it would have been directly referred to the consul A. Hostilius, who was heading the army nearby in Macedonia (cf. ll. 41–42). Foucart, “Rapport,” 370. On the contractual procedure for the collection of decumae, see briefly Claude Nicolet, “Dîmes de Sicile, d’Asie et d’ailleurs,” in Censeurs, 280. 168 Foucart, “Rapport,” 331. 169 Army requisitions were after all frequently imposed by unscrupulous praetores, often in unrealistic proportions. See Foucart, “Rapport,” 370–72. 170 Cf. Foucart, “Rapport,” 372; Migeotte, L’emprunt, 90–96, #24. 171 Cf. Nicholas Horsfall, “Atticus Brings Home the Bacon,” LCM 14.4 (1989): 60– 62. 172 See Inge Lyse Hansen, “Between Atticus and Aeneas: The Making of a Colonial Elite at Roman Butrint,” in Roman Colonies in the First Century of their Foundation (ed. R. J. Sweetman; Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2011), 90. Cf. Élisabeth Deniaux, “Atticus et l’Épire,” in L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Epire dans l’antiquité: Actes du colloque interna-

180

Part One: Philological Survey

Whatever the situation may have been in Thisbae, this inscription provides another suggestive example of the economic connotation of the term κοινωνία, which is here clearly employed to denote a commercial partnership of some sort between a single individual and a group of individuals173 – precisely the kind of evidence G. H. R. Horsley once called for in his critique of J. P. Sampley. 174 We cannot know for sure which Latin word in the original SC was rendered by κοινωνία in the Greek version (which is fairly literal, clumsy, and, therefore, most likely the work of a Latin native speaker at Rome).175 It is interesting to note that, in their attempt at reconstructing the original Latin text, J. Schmidt, C. G. Bruns, W. Dittenberger, and S. Riccobono, all followed T. Mommsen in his use of the term societas.176 Mommsen was himself decisive with his choice of words: “societas ea (nam alia res vocabulo quod est κοινωνία significari non potuit).”177 C. Nicolet would later concur, considering the term κοινωνία to refer to “une ‘association’” here, “une societas de droit privé” (and not a publica)178 – hence, Pandosinus was probably not “un publicain.”179 It is certainly difficult to envisage what other word could have been used, since societas was the general term to describe any kind of partnership in Latin legal terminology. One might suggest the word locatio, if Pandosinus’s deal with the Thisbeans related to the lease of agricultural land, but one would then have expected to read µίσθωσις in the Greek text instead.180 Alternatively, pactum might have been employed (cf. Cato, Agr. tional de Clermont-Ferrand, 22–25 octobre 1984 (ed. P. Cabanes; Clermont-Ferrand: Adosa, 1987), 245–54. 173 Moulton and Milligan also recognise the commercial connotation of κοινωνία here. See MM, s.v. κοινωνία (IG VII 2225 referenced as Syll 300). 174 Horsley, NewDocs 3, 19, #4. On multilateral partnerships, see Broekaert, “Joining Forces,” 224–25. 175 As Foucart indeed noted, “le traducteur est préoccupé de rendre non-seulement les idées, mais même les tournures latines et les expressions, sans aucun souci du génie de la langue grecque.” Foucart, “Rapport,” 323–25. The bilingual SC de Asclepiade (78 B.C.) gives us another example of a SC being official translated at Rome on the basis of the original version deposited in the aerarium. See Andrea Raggi, “Senatus consultum de Asclepiade Clazomenio sociisque,” ZPE 135 (2001): 88 (esp. n. 65). 176 In fact, they all seem to have reproduced Mommsen’s 1872 translation. See Mommsen, “Thisbaeis,” 278–98. Cf. Schmidt, “Senatsbeschlüsse,” 120; Bruns, Fontes 37, p. 170; Dittenberger, IG VII 2225, p. 381; Riccobono, FIRA2 1.31, p. 246. 177 I.e., this societas (for nothing else can be meant by the word κοινωνία). Mommsen, “Thisbaeis,” 297. 178 Claude Nicolet, L’ordre équestre à l’époque républicaine (312–43 av. J.-C.): Définitions juridiques et structures sociales (vol. 1; Paris: de Boccard, 1974), 348. 179 Nicolet, L’ordre équestre, 348. 180 See, for instance, the references to the µισθώσεως νόµος (lex locationis) in the SC de Amphiarai Oropiis agris (IG VII 413; 73 B.C.). Cf. Claude Nicolet, “A propos du règlement douanier d’Asie: dèmosiônia et les prétendus Quinque publica Asiae,” CRAI

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

181

136: politionem quo pacto partiario dari oporteat),181 but we cannot be certain. If indeed societas was used in the original version, which is the most plausible hypothesis, then this inscription would constitute an additional piece of evidence in support of the thesis that the Roman concept of societas, with all its socio-economic and legal implications, could be expressed in Greek by κοινωνία. As with κοινωνέω and κοινωνός, we have also found κοινωνία to evoke the action of associating in the use of a tomb. This sense is evident in the following inscription from Zeugma: σπηλεοǀκοινωνίας Μ[ι]γ|δέου καὶ Βαγράθ|θου, µεριτίας ἀνα‖τολικῆς Μιγδέου ǀ καὶ δυτικῆς τῶι ǀ Βαγράθθου ΛΧǀΜω (= λγµῶ) (ll. 2–9, ISeleukia 148; A.D. 325).182 The ed. pr. had initially thought that σπηλεοκοινωνία formed a new compound word. However, as J. and L. Robert have subsequently remarked, σπηλεοκοινωνία should instead be understood as denoting a “tombeau rupestre [σπήλεον for σπήλαιον] … appartenant à l’association [κοινωνία] formée par M. et B.”183 For J. and L. Robert, this interpretation was justified by the fact that, as we have seen earlier, “on trouve ailleurs κοινωνοί pour les co-possesseurs d’un tombeau.”184 Likewise, on an epitaph from Mysia a certain Dion recognises Asklepides as the eternal beneficiary of a share of his tomb: ∆ίων Ἡρακλίδου συνε|χώρησα Ἀσκληπίδῃ{ς} Ἀπολ|λιναρίου Πικρηνῷ τὴν εἰς | αἰῶνα κοινωνείαν ‖ ἐν τῷ µνηµίῳ (ll. 7–11; IHadrianoi 71, ca. A.D. II–III). 185 The term is used in a similar way on another tomb from Cilicia, which features the rules of a burial society (cf. κοινόν; ll. 23, 33) presided over by a mason from Selge named Rhodon (cf. IKilikiaBM 2.199): ἐὰν δέ τις ἀν? καὶ κοινωνε[ί]|αν ἑ[αυτοῦ θέλῃ π]ωλῆσαι ο̣ ὐκ ἐξ ὸ̣ ν | ΠΕΙ[ – – οὐ γὰρ ἔξεστι]‖ ἔξοθεν πωλῆσαι, ἀλ|λ̣ ὰ̣ λ̣ α̣ µβανέτ̣ω ἐκ τοῦ | κοινοῦ στατῆρες τριά|κοντα καὶ ἀποχωρείτω (ll. 18–24; IKilikiaBM 2.201, ca. A.D. I).186 The κοινόν herein 134.3 (1990): 684–85; repr. in Censeurs et publicains: Économie et fiscalité dans la Rome antique (Paris: Fayard, 2000); Raggi, “Asclepiade,” 95. 181 I.e., “Terms for letting the tending of the land to a share tenant” (Hooper, LCL). 182 I.e., communal tomb of Migdeos and Bagraththos, of which the eastern part (belongs) to Migdeos and the western (part) to the lot of Bagraththos. The last four letters ΛΧǀΜω (= λγµῶ) are to be understood as meaning lot, according to the ed. pr. See R. Mouterde and A. Poidebard, eds., Le limes de Chalcis: Organisation de la steppe en haute Syrie romaine (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1945), 212–13, #47. 183 J. and L. Robert, BE (1946–1947): 358–59, #204. 184 J. and L. Robert, BE (1946–1947): 359, #204. 185 I.e., I Dion, son of Heraklides have granted to Asklepides, son of Apollinarios, from Pikrenos, a perpetual share of the tomb. 186 I.e., if anyone goes up (i.e., goes to Selge?) and [wishes to?] sell his/her share, PEI [it is not permitted?] to sell (it) from there, but he let him/her receive from the koinon thirty staters and depart. The monument was found amongst a group of tombs in an

182

Part One: Philological Survey

advises that if any of the ten persons mentioned at the beginning of the inscription (ll. 1–10) goes up (to Selge, presumably) and wishes to sell his allocated lot, he or she shall not do so from there (Selge?), but shall receive thirty staters and leave the κοινόν.187 What is of course most interesting here is that κοινωνία is the direct object of the verb πωλέω, a collocation that is otherwise unattested in literary and documentary sources and which gives the cognate an unusual concrete sense. For, on this occasion, κοινωνία seems to correspond to an actual share of the tomb, which could be bought or sold, rather than to its common ownership.188 One last piece of evidence from the archive wall of Aphrodisias may be adduced before closing this section. Although κοινωνία here fails to have a strictly economic connotation, it still expresses in a suggestive way the idea of partnering (in a benevolent action). In a letter to Aphrodisias, Emperor Gordian III praises the citizens for their assistance with the reconstruction of some building(s), possibly after an earthquake at Laodikea:189 Τὸ τῆς Ἀσίας βούλευµα, τὸ καὶ ὑµᾶς καταστῆσαν εἰς κο[ινωνί]αν τῆς π̣ ρ̣ [ὸς] τ̣ο̣ ὺ̣ς̣ ἀτυχήσαντας | ἐπικουρίας, οὐκ ἐπίταγµ̣ α ἦν, οὐδὲ γὰρ οἷόν τε ἐπιτάγµατι χρῆσθ̣αι, π[ρὸς το]ὺ̣ς ̣ ἐλευθ̣έ̣ρους, ἀ•̣̣ ὰ πολείτευµα | χρηστὸν ἐν µετουσίᾳ καθιστᾶν ὑµᾶς φιλανθρώπου πράξεως καὶ ο[ἵη]ς καὶ καθ’ ὑµᾶς πράττετε ἐν [κα]τα‖σκευῇ τινος ο̣ ἰ̣κοδοµήµατος συνεπιλαµβανόµενοι τῆς ἀναστάσε̣[ω]ς τοῖ̣ς ̣ δεοµένοις (ll. 3–6; IAphrodArchive 21, A.D. 243).190 Whilst the reading is not entirely certain, it accords quite well with µετουσία (l. 5), ancient site near the modern-day town of Direvli. Several other inscriptions also make reference to a burial society, κοινόν (cf. IKilikiaBM 2.197, 198, 200, 202, 205). The actual purpose of this κοινόν remains uncertain, but it seems to have been “devoted exclusively to the burial of [its] members.” Kloppenborg, “Collegia,” in Voluntary Associations, 29 (n. 42). Cf. Philip A. Harland, “Familial Dimensions of Group Identity: ‘Brothers’ (Α∆ΕΛΦΟΙ) in Associations of the Greek East,” JBL 124.3 (2005): 497–98. 187 Cf. IKilikiaBM 2.201, p. 182. 188 Cf. Nijf, Civic World, 47. 189 While no other epigraphic evidence of an earthquake affecting the region at the time has been discovered, the references to victims of misfortune (τοὺς ἀτυχήσαντας, l. 3), and to reconstruction (ἐν κατασκευῇ τινος οἰκοδοµήµατος τῆς ἀναστάσεως, l. 6), make it the most plausible explanation. The place of the disaster may be suggested by the mention of the city of Laodikea in l. 9, though the text is difficult to read and to relate to the rest of the inscription. In hindsight, the Aphrodisians must have complained to the emperor about what they perceived to be a demanding resolution coming from the Asian koinon. His reply is a gem of diplomacy and tactfulness. Cf. Reynolds’ commentary in IAphrodArchive 21. 190 I.e., the resolution of Asia which set you also in partnership with the relief effort towards those suffering from misfortune was not an injunction, for nothing of the sort (can be) proclaimed by decree to those who are free, but (it was) a good administrative measure which associated you with a benevolent action, such as that which you undertook also among yourselves when you took part in the preparation for the construction of some building for those in need.

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

183

i.e., participation or partnership, and with the overall context of the inscription, which provides another good illustration of the type of partnership (in a common enterprise) that could be signified by the term.

5.3 Κοινωνία and its Cognates in Papyri We shall now proceed to conduct a similar survey of the papyrological evidence. For this purpose, we have made full use of the resources available in the DDbDP, HGV, and APIS databases, which we have systematically checked against the ed. pr. or subsequently printed editions. As with the epigraphic evidence, we have included a summary of all the data collected in appendix B, along with translations and a selective bibliography. 5.3.1 Κοινωνέω As in inscriptions, the verb κοινωνέω is rather rare in papyri. Its earliest occurrence is found in the famous tax-revenue laws of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (P.Rev., 259/8 B.C.), in which, as we shall later see in section 5.3.2, associates of the tax-farmers are designated several times as κοινωνοί. In one instance, however, they are identified as those who have partnered with the chief contractor (ἀρχώνης) in the tax-farming concession (ὠνή): τῶν τι κοινωνούντων … τῆ[ι ὠ]νῆι (col. 22, ll. 2–3)191 – a participial construction not uncommon in literary sources, as we have already seen (cf. Demosthenes, Or. 37.38; Polybius, Hist. 6.17.4). A similar sense of the term is found in a Byzantine tax-farming contract from Antaiopolites (P.Lond. V 1660; ca. A.D. 553), which illustrates the enduring usage of the word in such a way. Although the text of this draft is particularly convoluted, it is quite apparent that the tax-collectors were planning to partner together for half a share of all the profits and expenses: καθὰ προεῖπον ἐπὶ τ̣ῷ̣ ἐ[ν πᾶσ]ι̣ κοινωνεῖν καὶ συµµετέχειν σοι εἰς τὸ ἐπιβάλλον σοι µέρος κατὰ τὸ ἥµισυ (ll. 18–19).192 The phrasing of lines 16–19, though not entirely clear grammatically, 193 most likely implies “that if any profit is made after 191

Cf. Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 11. For a fundamental discussion of this papyrus and of Ptolemaic leasing procedures, see the ed. pr. Cf. Wilcken, Ostraka, 535–55; Claire Préaux, L’économie royale des Lagides (Bruxelles: Édition de la fondation égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1939), 65–93; Jean Bingen, Le papyrus Revenue Laws: Tradition grecque et adaptation hellénistique (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1978); reprinted with slight adaptation in idem, Hellenistic Egypt: Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture (ed. R. S. Bagnall; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), 157–88. 192 I.e., (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. 193 Line 16 begins with a protasis (and a rare optative), εἰ δὲ συµβαίη ὑπολιπέσθαι οἷόν τι, but neither an apodosis nor a main verb is found afterwards.

184

Part One: Philological Survey

all the taxes are paid (i.e., if the payments exceed the estimates) it is to be divided between the parties to the agreement.”194 The verb was not restricted to tax-farming partnerships, however, and could be applied more generally to other kinds of joint-business venture, just as in literary sources (e.g., Diodorus Siculus 1.74.7: οἱ δ’ ἐµπορίας κοινωνοῦσιν).195 In SB XVI 13008 (A.D. 144), for instance, two men, Haprokras and Demetrios, agree to partner with a certain Dioskoros in the joint-lease of a date and olive grove: Βουλόµε[θα] κοινωνή[σ]ειν σο̣ ι ̣ ἕκασ̣ τ̣ ο̣ ς ̣ [ἡ]µῶν κ̣ α̣ τ̣ὰ τ̣ὸ̣ τρ̣ ί̣τ̣ [ον µέρ]ο̣ ς ̣ πρὸς µ[όνους τοὺς ἐπικει]µ̣ έ̣ν̣ου̣ ς ̣ τ[οῦ ἐνεσ]τῶ[το]ς ̣ ζ ̣ (ἔτους) φοινι[κικο]ὺς καὶ ἐλαικοὺ̣[ς] καρποὺς ἐκ̣ π̣ ίπτοντας ε̣[ἰς τὸ] εἰσιὸν η (ἔτος) τῶν [π]άντων ἐλαί̣ν̣ων φυτῶ[ν] καὶ φ̣̣οινίκων ἐν ᾗ τυγχάνις ἔχειν ἐν µισθώσι κτλ. (ll. 7–16).196 Each consents to partake of a third of the harvest and to pay to the lessor, Dioskoros, a levy of fifty-six drachmas.197 The same sense of κοινωνέω can be observed in another lease between two farmers (P.Stras. V 362; A.D. 149–150): Βούλοµαι ἑκουσίω[ς] καὶ αὐθαιρ[έτ]ω[ς] κοινωνῆσ̣ α̣ ί̣ σοι κατὰ τὸ ἥµ[ισυ] µέρος ὧν κ[α]ὶ σὺ τυγχάνις µεµισθῶσ[θαι] κτλ. (ll. 4–6).198 Likewise, it is found in a partnership contract between two fruiterers some four centuries later (P.Lond. V 1794; A.D. 487), which further testifies to the longevity of this connotation. The two men, who describe themselves as ὀπωρώνης, that is, most likely, fruiterers (ὀπωροπώλης),199 agree to form a partnership with one another for a period of one year: ὁµολογοῦµεν ἑτοί̣µως ἔχε[ι]ν κοινωνεῖν ἀ•ήλοις ε̣[ἰ]ς τὴν προειρηµένην τεχνὴν ὠ̣πωρώνην [π]ρὸς ἐνιαυσιαῖον χρόνον λογιζό̣ ̣µενον (ll. 7–9).200 What is particularly interesting to note here is one of the conditions of the partnership, whereby they accept to share in all revenues and expenditures: (ὁµολογοῦµεν κοινωνεῖν) … ἐπ̣ ὶ̣ κοινῷ λήµ̣ µ̣ ατι καὶ 194

Bell, P.Lond. V 1660, p. 23 (note on ll. 16–19). See also the relevant section in our review of Endenburg. 196 I.e., we wish to partner with you, each one of us according to a third [share], in the harvest of dates and olives of the [present] 7th (year) [only], which are to become mature in the coming 8th (year), (which shall be produced) by all the palm trees and olive trees which you rent etc. Cf. Sayed Omar, “Eine Rolle mit sieben Hypomnemata aus dem Ägyptischen Museum zu Kairo,” ZPE 50 (1983): 81–86. 197 Ll. 18–24: ἡµῶν ἀποδιδούντων σὺν σὺ [σοὶ? Cf. Omar, p. 85] ̣ ̣ ̣κατὰ τὸ ἐπι̣βάλλον ἑκάστου ἡµῶν τρί[το]ν µερο〚υ〛{ο}ς τοῦ φόρου δ̣ [ρ]αχµῶν πεντήκοντα ἓξ ταῖς διὰ τοῦ ἀναφορίου σου προθεσµίαις ἀκολούθως; i.e., we (shall) pay to you (?), each according to our third share, our portion of the rent (being) 56 drachmas, in accordance with your appointed time for the payment. 198 I.e., I wish to partner with you voluntarily and of my own free will according to half a share of the lot which is for rent etc. 199 Cf. LSJ, s.v. ὀπωρώνης; Bell, P.Lond. V 1794, p. 251. 200 I.e., we readily agree to partner with one another in the aforesaid fruit-dealing trade for a period of one year. 195

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

185

ἀναλώµ̣ [α]τ̣ ι καὶ ο̣ ὕ̣τ̣ω ἡµᾶς πα̣ ρ̣ α̣σ χεῖν κ[ο]ι̣νῶς τα ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ια ἀν̣ α̣λώµατα τῆς αὐτῆς τεχνῆ̣ς ̣ κ̣ [αὶ] µ̣ ε̣τ̣ὰ τὴ[ν ἀπόδο]σ̣ [ιν?] τῶν φόρ[ω]ν καὶ τῶν ἀναλω̣ µάτων̣ (ll. 12–16).201 Whilst such contracts remain rather rare, one may presume that many comparable agreements would have actually been drafted throughout antiquity, 202 which somewhat justifies O. Montevecchi’s classification of this document in her list of classic examples of “contratti di società per lavori o imprese commerciali” (i.e., societas contracts for some work or commercial enterprise).203 As a matter of fact, similar types of partnerships are alluded to in a number of additional papyri. The memorandum of a judge (BGU III 969; A.D. 142), for example, makes reference to a partnership in a cattle-rearing business (τῆς κτηνοτροφία[ς] ἧς ἐκοινώνουν, ll. 12–13), which may have also entailed the common ownership of the cattle in question.204 Likewise, the private letter P.Brem. 11 (A.D. 117–118) mentions a complaint to the strategos of Lykopoleitos against two men, Ammonios and Hermokles, who did not share with a certain Apollonios their portion of a stock of some vegetables (περὶ τοῦ µὴ κοινωνεῖν ἡµᾶς σ[ο]ι ἡµίσους µέρους τοῦ ἄρακ[ο]ς, ll. 8–10).205 While little is disclosed of the attendant circumstances, it is improbable that the strategos would have been petitioned had there been no legal implications. It is therefore likely that the object of the complaint belonged to both the plaintiff and the prosecuted party by virtue of some (inherited or agreed upon) joint-ownership or partnership contract. If more background information were available, one might also be able to make analogous deductions concerning the business partnerships evoked in the private letters P.Oxy.Hels. 48 (A.D. II–III), P.Lond. II 197 V (A.D. III?), and P.Oxy. XLII 3086 (III–IV). In the absence of a clearer context, however, it is perhaps best not to speculate on the nature of these arrangements. 201

I.e., (we readily agree to partner) … 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 (... ?). 202 See also the brief business note P.Oxy. XLII 3086 (A.D. III–IV), which makes reference to the settling of accounts between several partners, one of whom is simply identified as (ὁ) κοινωνῶν. Cf. Jakab, “Berenike,” 77–78; Éva Jakab and Ulrich Manthe, “Recht in der römischen Antike,” in Die Rechtskulturen der Antike: Vom Alten Orient bis zum Römischen Reich (ed. U. Manthe; Munich: C. H. Beck, 2003), 305. 203 Orsolina Montevecchi, La papirologia (Turin: Società editrice internazionale, 1973), 225. 204 It is also possible that this κτηνοτροφία consisted of a liturgy (i.e., the rearing of public animals), but the context is rather ambiguous. See Llewelyn’s discussion in NewDocs 8, 87–90, #5. Cf. Baumert, Koinonein, 71–72, 94. 205 In their letter to Apollonios, the two men actually express their displeasure at Apollonios’ complaint to the strategos in writing (ll. 6–8).

186

Part One: Philological Survey

Just as frequently attested as κοινωνέω is the compound verb ἐπικοινωνέω. It first appears in the fragmentary partnership contract P.Köln II 101 (A.D. 274–280), a cheirographon written by two tradesmen agreeing to associate in what appears to be a metal-working business: ὁµολογοῦµεν ἐπικοινωνήσιν ἀλλήλοις εἰς ἐργασίαν βρυτανικῆς τέχνης ἐπ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ἕνα καὶ µῆνας ἕξ (ll. 7–11).206 Regrettably, the end of the document has not survived, and nothing else is known about the terms of the contract except that they had consented to share some (undetermined) expenses, which were probably related to the purchase of raw material (ἐφ’ ᾧτε ἡµᾶς ἀµφοτέρους τήν τε συνωνὴν πάντω[ν]; ll. 14–15).207 In which case, it seems reasonable to assume that they would have also shared equally the proceeds of the business (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.150; Justinian, Inst. 3.25.1).208 Their agreement can thus be described as a 50–50 partnership. And indeed, for the edd. pr. B. Kramer and D. Hagedorn, “sie gründen also eine Firma mit zwei gleichberechtigten Partnern.”209 A comparable use of ἐπικοινωνέω is found in a petition addressed to a strategos by a certain Isidoros (P.Mert. II 91; A.D. 316), who complains that the two landlords with whom he formed a partnership have breached their agreement and carried away all of the harvest: ἀπελθόντε̣ς ἄνευ τῆς ἐµῆ̣ς γνώµης πάντ̣ [ας] τὰς ἁλωνίας ἃ̣ς ἔχω ἅµα αὐτοῖς ἐπικοινων[ού]ν̣ των ἐβάσταξαν εἰς τὸ ἴδιον (ll. 13–14).210 The sense of ἐπικοινωνέω is slightly ambiguous here, given that the participle does not seem to accord with anything else in the sentence.211 The issue is clarified, however, by the mention, at the beginning of the petition, that Isidoros had leased twentyfive arouras in partnership (ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ) with these two men on a half206 I.e., we agree to partner together in a tin-working (?) trade for the period of one year and six months. Note: the exact sense of βρυτανικός (= Βρετανικός?) remains unclear, though it probably refers to tin. See Dieter Hagedorn, “Fünf Urkundenpapyri der Kölner Sammlung,” ZPE 13 (1974): 127–29. Cf. LSJ, s.v. βρυτανικός. 207 I.e., for which we both [shall share?] the purchase of all (primary materials?). 208 Cf. Hagedorn, “Urkundenpapyri,” 130: “vermutlich wurdevereinbart, sowohl den Aufkauf der Rohstoffe als auch den Verkauf der Fertigwaren gemeinsam durchzufuhren.” As Justinian further explains (Inst. 3.25.1), in the absence of an explicit agreement, profits and losses should be divided equally: Et quidem, si nihil de partibus lucri et damni nominatim convenerit, aequales scilicet partes et in lucro et in damno spectantur (i.e., and if the parties do not expressly come to an agreement concerning the shares of the profits and losses, they shall be considered equal). 209 Kramer and Hagedorn, P.Köln II 101, p. 163. 210 I.e., they set out without my knowledge and carried away to their own (property) all the threshed grain which I own together with them with whom I have a partnership. 211 Should we understand it to refer to the grain that is owned in common, or “in partnership,” as the edd. pr. suggested? Or, taking ἐπικοινωνούντων as a genitive absolute, should we understand it to refer to the two scoundrels with whom he had formed a partnership? Cf. P.Mert. II 91, p. 160.

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

187

share basis.212 Similarly, in a lease contract from the same period, a man acknowledges his partnership for the rent of a camel-shed as follows: ὁµολογῶ ἑκουσίᾳ καὶ αὐθαιρέτῳ γνώµῃ συντεθῖσθαί213 µε πρὸς σὲ ἐπὶ τῷ µαι ἐπικοινωνῖν σοι εἰς τὸν ψυκτῆρα τοῦ καµηλῶνος (ll. 4–7, P.Oxy. X 1280; A.D. IV.).214 The financial scale of this example of “contratti di società,”215 which R. Taubenschlag understood to represent a societas negotiationis,216 seems to have been particularly significant, since it amounted to a thousand myriads of silver (ll. 11–12).217 One last example comes from the fragmentary petition draft destined for the emperor Justinian in Constantinople (P.Cair.Masp. III 67352; ca. A.D. 548/549 or 551), in which the plaintiff requests the right to associate (ἐπικοινωνεῖν, l. 28) with those involved in the (collection?) of the annona (ἡ αἰσία ἐµβολή, l. 26).218 In sum, based on the evidence herein adduced, it is reasonable to conclude that, from a pragmatic point of view, there appears to have been little semantic difference between κοινωνέω and ἐπικοινωνέω, which, in papyri, just as in juristic literary sources (e.g., Demosthenes, Or. 29.36), could signify the act of associating or cooperating in a business enterprise.219 Naturally, not every occurrence of κοινωνέω implies a business partnership. For example, in one of the rescripts of Severus (ll. 45–51, P.Col. VI 123; A.D. 199–200), 220 and also perhaps in the trial report of P.Oxy. XII 212 ll. 7–8: ἐµισθωσάµην παρὰ Κάστορος καὶ Ἀ̣µµ[ω]ν̣ ιανοῦ σιτικὰς ἀρούρας εἴκοσι πέντε ἢ ὅσα̣ [ι] ἐὰν ὦσι ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ ἡµίσους µ[έ]ρ̣ους (i.e., I leased from Kastor and Ammonianos twenty-five aroura of corn, or as many as there may be, in partnership, on halfshares). Cf. ll. 5–6 in the duplicate P.Cair.Isid. 74. Isidoros was to provide seeds for sowing and cultivate the field at his own expenses for half a share of the total produce. 213 According to Wolff and Montevecchi, the infinitive συντεθεῖσθαι should be understood as having the sense of τεθεῖσθαι µετοχήν, and thereby as expressing the Roman idea of consensual obligation. Hans J. Wolff, “Consensual Contract in the Papyri,” JJP 1 (1946): 77; Montevecchi, La papirologia, 225. 214 I.e., 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. 215 Montevecchi, La papirologia, 225. 216 Taubenschlag rejected the idea that this partnership could consist of a societas unius rei. Raphael Taubenschlag, “Die societas negotiationis im Rechte der Papyri,” ZRG 52 (1932): 64. 217 Montevecchi, La papirologia, 225. 218 The text is very lacunose and therefore difficult to translate. For a revised edition and commentary, see Jean-Luc Fournet, “Les tribulations d’un pétitionnaire égyptien à Constantinople: Révision de P.Cair.Masp. III 67352,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 2007 (ed. T. Gagos; Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Library, 2010), 243–50. 219 The definitions provided in LSJ are indeed very similar. See LSJ, s.v. κοινωνέω; s.v. ἐπικοινωνέω. Cf. Preisigke, WB 1:558; Endenburg, Koinoonia, 100–101. 220 For a commentary on the legal implication of this rescript, see Westermann and Schiller, P.Col. VI 123, pp. 23, 81–88.

188

Part One: Philological Survey

1408 (A.D. 212–214),221 it clearly denotes complicity in criminal behaviour. On some other occasions, such as in the private letters P.Gron. 17 and P.Got. 12 (A.D. III–IV), it evokes social interaction,222 while in legal documents such as P.Oxy. XLIII 3117 (A.D. 235), a record of court proceedings, and P.Oxy. XXVII 2474 (A.D. III), a Roman will, it refers to the joint ownership of some property. It should nonetheless be apparent from the few examples herein reviewed that it is the sense of partnering or associating in a business enterprise that stands out from the papyrological evidence. This contrasts rather starkly with the epigraphic sources, in which the idea of political alliance and of participation in sacrifices and/or festivals predominates. This dissimilarity is easily explained by the fact that inscriptions mainly comprise civic and/or cultic decrees, whilst papyri mostly consist of contracts, leases, legal proceedings, administrative and financial records, as well as private correspondences. 5.3.2 Κοινωνός As with κοινωνέω, the earliest attestation of κοινωνός is found in P.Rev., wherein, in context, it identifies associates of the chief tax-farmer (col. 10, l. 5: οἱ κοινῶνες; col. 18, l. 2: τῶν κοινών[ω]ν),223 who are otherwise referred as µέτοχοι (cf. col. 34, ll. 10–21)224 – which suggests that the two substantives could sometimes be employed as practical synonyms. 225 This designation is fairly frequent in papyri, especially in documents from A.D. II to V (in which the term is often abbreviated as κοιν or κοι),226 although, in contrast with epigraphic sources, these κοινωνοί never seem to correspond to 221

Cf. Johnson et al., Roman Statutes, 227–28, #280; Westermann, Slave Systems,

131.

222

On this possible connotation of κοινωνέω, see Endenburg, Koinoonia, 78–80. As Mayser notes, in this Ptolemaic document κοινών corresponds to κοινωνός. Mayser, Grammatik, 1:446. Cf. LSJ, s.v. κοινών. 224 The two terms appear to be used interchangeably to designate the same persons throughout the document, and indeed, in other documents as well. Cf. Rostovtzeff, Staatspacht, 347; Wilcken, Ostraka, 539; Friedrich Oertel, Die Liturgie: Studien zur ptolemäischen und kaiserlichen Verwaltung Ägyptens (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1917; repr., Aalen: Scientia, 1965), 251; San Nicolò, Vereinswesen 1:150–51 (n. 2); A. Steinwenter, “Aus dem Gesellschaftsrechte der Papyri,” in Studi in onore di Salvatore Riccobono nel XL anno del suo insegnamento (vol. 1; ed. S. Riccobono; Palermo: G. Castiglia, 1936), 488–89. Campbell and Horsley have also noted the synonymity of the two words in Luke 5:7–10. See Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 362; Horsley, NewDocs 1, 85, #40. Cf. Llewelyn, NewDocs 9, 47, #18; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ, 20–21. 225 Cf. Wilcken, Ostraka, 541; idem, W.Chr., p. 183; San Nicolò, Vereinswesen 1:150. 226 E.g., P.Hamb. I 69 (A.D. 146); P.Par. 17 (A.D. 153); O.Bodl. II 1077 (A.D. I–II); BGU XI 2067 (A.D. II); P.Leit. 13 (A.D. 222–243); BGU IV 1062 (A.D. 236); O.Mich. I 582 (A.D. IV); P.Lond. V 1653 (A.D. IV); P.Mich. XII 647 (A.D. IV); O.Bodl. II 2103 (A.D. IV–V). 223

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

189

publicani (most likely because societates publicanorum were never operative in Egypt).227 In most cases, associate officials involved in the collection and administration of (mainly grain) taxes (e.g., σιτολόγοι, ἀπαιτηταί, ἀπο/ὑποδέκται, σιτοµέτραι, ἐπιµεληταί) are clearly in view, as is evident in P.Sakaon 10, 20, 21 and 25 (A.D. 319–352).228 Interestingly, however, in several documents from the same archive, P.Sakaon 22, 24, 25 (l. 5), and 51 (A.D. 324–327), associates of the two κωµάρχαι (i.e., village elders) of Theadelphia are also called κοινωνοί,229 who, as A. C. Johnson and L. C. West have suggested, should be understood as being bound by “a collegiality of office” (rather than by some kind of partnership contract).230 227

At the end of the Republican era, due to recurrent conflicts with censors and the senate, the societates publicanorum, which originally mainly consisted of equites wellconnected to the senatorial ordo, lost the supervision of the collection of direct taxes in the provinces to the benefit of imperial slaves or freedmen (generally working under the direction of equestrian procurators) and other city officials. In Egypt, their involvement in the collection of indirect taxes seems to have also been minimal due to the efficient civil administration put in place by the Ptolemies, which the Romans maintained. Our understanding of Roman tax-farming in Egypt remains very sketchy, however. See Wallace, Taxation, 286–335 (esp. 286–93); Brunt, “Publicans,” 354–432 (esp. 380–81); idem, “The Administrators of Roman Egypt,” in Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 235–43; Herbert C. Youtie, “Publicans and Sinners,” in Scriptiunculae (vol. 1; Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1973), 554–78 (esp. 564–67). 228 See also in appendix SB XVIII 13134 (A.D. 111–112); SB X 10293 (A.D. 198); P.Col. VII 136, 137, 141, 142, 148, 150, 152, 154–156 (A.D. 298–347); SB XXIV 15954 (A.D. 301); P.Sakaon 87 (post A.D. 302); P.Mich. X 600, XII 643–646 (A.D. 303–304); P.Oxy. XII 1542 (A.D. 307); P.Sakaon 16 (A.D. 309); P.Cair.Isid. 11, 41, 44, 47, 50, 61, 95, 96 (A.D. 310–323); O.Mich. I 519, 523, 529, 530 and IV 1134 (A.D. 312–313); P.Erl. Diosp. 1 (A.D. 312–313); P.NYU I 4, 7 (A.D. 312, 343); P.Neph. 43 (A.D. 315–331); P.Mich. IX 573 (A.D. 316); SB V 7621 (A.D. 324); P.Charite 15 (A.D. 329); P.Col. VII 161 (A.D. 351); P.Oxy. LXVII 4606 and 4612 (A.D. 361–363); SB XXII 15311 (A.D. 367–383); P.Mich. XX 806 (A.D. 369); P.Mich. XX 809 (A.D. 372); P.Mich. XII 647 (A.D. IV). The numerous references to σιτολόγοι in Karanis is explained by the fact that, according to Boak, there existed “a board or committee” of possibly ten so-called κοινωνοί σιτολόγοι there. See A. E. R. Boak, “An Egyptian Farmer of the Age of Diocletian and Constantine,” Byzantina-metabyzantina 1 (1946): 49. For further information on the role of σιτολόγοι and similar administrators, see Oertel, Liturgie, 204–208, 214–22, 250– 57; Aly Zaki, “Sitologia in Roman Egypt,” JJP 4 (1950): 289–307; Jacqueline Lallemand, L’administration civile de l’Égypte de l’avènement de Dioclétien à la création du diocèse (284–382): Contribution à l’étude des rapports entre l’Égypte et l’Empire à la fin du IIIe et au IVe siècle (Bruxelles: Palais des Académies, 1964), 206–216; Bernhard Palme, “The Range of Documentary Texts: Types and Categories,” in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (ed. R. S. Bagnall; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 328–83. 229 Cf. CPR VI 5 (A.D. 336); P.Kell. I 23 (A.D. 353). On the role of κωµάρχαι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 153–56. 230 Allan C. Johnson and Louis C. West, Byzantine Egypt: Economic Studies (Amsterdam: A. K. Hakkert, 1967), 153. Cf. Roger S. Bagnall, “Theadelphian Taxes in CPR VI 5,” BSAC 24 (1982): 117–18.

190

Part One: Philological Survey

The same use of the term can be observed in P.Oxy. XLIII 3090 (A.D. 216), which makes mention of associate liturgists.231 Similarly, in P.Gen. I 41 (A.D. 223) it refers to associate πρεσβύτεροι,232 while in O.Mich. I 454 and II 899 (A.D. 296) it designates associate δεκάπρωτοι (i.e., decemprimi, to whom the σιτολόγοι were subordinated),233 in P.Sakaon 25 (A.D. 327) associate ἐπιµεληταί (ἐργατῶν ἀρτοκοπίων; ll. 25–26),234 in P.Oxy. XIV 1626 (A.D. 325) associate δεκανοί (i.e., chief watchmen),235 in P.Louvre II 120 (ca. A.D. 340) associates to an ἑκατόνταρχος (i.e., centurion),236 in P.Oxy. XLVIII 3390 (A.D. 358) associate νοµικοί (i.e., jurists or notaries),237 and in BGU III 974 (A.D. 380) and SPP VIII 1192 (A.D. V) associate διαδόται (i.e., army suppliers).238 It should be noted that, in all these cases, the term is employed to identify associates in a particular civic office (which often had the responsibility of collecting taxes and managing city finances), who may have also been members of a collegium.239 References to κοινωνοί as business partners are rather less frequent, though no less interesting. Due to the fragmentary state of the documents, or to the lack of contextual information, it is sometimes difficult to determine with certainty the exact nature of the relationship implied. For instance, the receipt for a partial repayment of grain, SB XII 11007 (ca. A.D. I), simply introduces (in abbreviated fashion) Pasoknopaios as the κοινωνός of Harphaesis without providing any further information.240 Fortunately, in 231

See also perhaps P.Wisc. I 3 (A.D. 256–259). Cf. P.Oxy. XIX 2243 A (A.D. 590); P.Oxy. XVI 1917 and 2037 (A.D. VI). On the role of πρεσβύτεροι (κώµης), see Oertel, Liturgie, 146–53. 233 Cf. O.Mich. I 76 (A.D. 295); P.Oxy. LIX 3980 (A.D. 300–302). The δεκάπρωτοι were then replaced by the σιτολόγοι for the collection of corn dues from A.D. 302 onwards. See J. David Thomas, “The Disappearance of the Dekaprotoi in Egypt,” BASP 11.2–4 (1974): 60–68. Cf. K. G. Brandis, “∆εκάπρωτοι,” PW[1] 4:2417–22; Oertel, Liturgie, 211–14; E. G. Turner, “Egypt and the Roman Empire: The ∆EKAΠPΩTOI,” JEA 22.1 (1936): 7–19; Lallemand, L’administration, 206; Lewis, Public Services, 20. 234 Cf. P.Münch. III 138 (A.D. IV). On the function of ἐπιµεληταί, see J. Oehler, “Ἐπιµεληταί,” PW[1] 6:162–71 (esp. 170–71). 235 On the meaning and function of a δεκανός, see Grenfell and Hunt, P.Oxy. XIV 1626, pp. 1 and 3; Roger S. Bagnall, “Army and Police in Roman Upper Egypt,” JARCE 14 (1977): 69, 73–76. 236 The identity of these κοινωνοί is unclear. The ed. pr. suggested that it might have referred to members of a collegium. See A. Jördens, P.Louvre II, p. 125. 237 The range of activities for νοµικοί (or νοµικάριοι?) was quite vast. See P.Oxy. XLVIII 3390, p. 83 (n. 1). 238 See also perhaps O.Bodl. II 2104 (A.D. IV–V). Cf. LSJ, s.v. διαδότης; Oertel, Liturgie, 221–22; Lallemand, L’administration, 216–17; Lewis, Public Services, 21. 239 Cf. Brandis, “∆εκάπρωτοι,” PW[1] 4:2421–22; Oertel, Liturgie, 146, 211, 221; Turner, “∆EKAΠPΩTOI,” 8; Lallemand, L’administration, 208, 215–16. 240 Note: what is original about this transaction is that the debt was indexed on the price of wine (ἀπὸ τῆς τιµῆς τοῦ οἴνου, ll. 2–3), but repaid with four artabas of grain (ἀρ232

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

191

most cases it is possible to gain a reasonably clear understanding of the situation. This is the case with the fragmentary lease BGU IV 1123 (30 B.C.–A.D. 14), whereby three persons, who inherited the lease, agree to cultivate a parcel of land in common to the extent of a third share each: ὁµολογοῦµεν εἶναι τοὺς τρεῖς µε[τό]χ̣ους καὶ κοινωνοὺς καὶ κυρίους ἕκαστον κατὰ τὸ τρίτον µέρος ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν εἰς τὸν ἀε̣ὶ̣ χ̣ ρ̣ ό̣νον τῆς προκειµένης µισθώσε[ως – ca. ? – ] κτλ. (ll. 4–5).241 Although the nature of the exploitation and the terms of the partnership are difficult to ascertain due to the poor preservation of the document, allusions to ἀρουρῶν χιλίων ὀγδοήκοντα τεσσάρων (l. 2), ἄµπελος (l. 2), ἀργυρίου δραχµὰς χιλίας (l. 3), and δραχµὰς ὀκτακο[σί]α̣ ς (l. 4), strongly suggest that the lease concerned a large estate and involved significant transactions of money. The contract also stipulates that, once all associated costs had been paid, each partner should receive a third of the profits (cf. ll. 8–10). It finally closes with a typical Strafklausel stipulating that if someone acted in an improper manner (ἀδικίᾳ, i.e., dolo malo) towards the others, he would have to pay for the (economic) prejudice incurred (cf. ll. 11–12).242 Such agricultural partnerships appear to have been quite common and are attested in a number of similar documents and private letters. A good example is provided by the cheirographon P.Flor. III 370 (A.D. 132), in which two Roman men, T. Flavius Sarapion and P. Aelius Apollonios, decide to partner and sublet a plot of public land on half-shares: [Ὁ]µολογῶ ἔσασθαί σοι κοινωνὸς κατὰ τὸ ἥµισυ µέρος γεωργίας (ll. 2–3).243 They resolve to divide equally all taxes and labour expenditures, and conclude their agreement by confirming its legal efficacy and authority: ἡ κοινωνία κυρία (l. 18) – we shall discuss this papyrus further in our next section (5.3.3).244 τάβας τέσσαρες, l. 3). Cf. Ann E. Hanson, “Three Papyri from the University of Michigan Collection,” ZPE 9 (1972): 227–29. 241 I.e., we three agree to be partners, associates, and trustees, of the aforesaid lease, each according to a third share, from now on and for all time. Contrary to what San Nicolò had initially suggested, the three partners actually received the lease by way of inheritance before forming a Gesellschaft, as pointed out by Kreller with whom Taubenschlag concurred. San Nicolò, Vereinswesen 1:150–51; Hans Kreller, Erbrechtliche Untersuchungen auf Grund der graeco-aegyptischen Papyrusurkunden (vol. 1; Leipzig: Teubner, 1915), 82 (n. 4); Taubenschlag, “societas,” 66 (n. 5). Cf. Steinwenter, “Gesellschaftsrechte,” in Studi Riccobono (ed. Riccobono), 489 (n. 13), 496 (n. 41); Herrmann, BodenPacht, 218; Peter Arzt-Grabner, “How to Deal with Onesimus? Paul’s Solution within the Frame of Ancient Legal and Documentary Sources,” in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter (ed. D. F. Tolmie; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 136. 242 Cf. Taubenschlag, “societas,” 66–69. On similar Strafklauseln in partnership contracts, see ibid., 73; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 391. 243 I.e., I agree to be your partner for (the cultivation of) a half share of (arable) land. Cf. Taubenschlag, “societas,” 65, 67–68. 244 On the legal significance of such κυρία clause, see Wolff, Recht, 145–46, 155–60.

192

Part One: Philological Survey

This instance pointedly illustrates R. Taubenschlag’s comment that such partnership arrangements were in general established in written form (with a precise description of “die Rechte und Pflichten der socii”), though “ein mündlicher Vertrag” with the promise of a written contract may have often been sufficient245 – which explains why so few partnership contracts have survived. The legal character of the settlement is here further reinforced by the κυρία-clause, as F. Preisigke has justly remarked: “dieser Teilhabervertrag (Pachtung) soll rechtsgültig sein.”246 Another well-known example comes from the letter of a certain Hermokrates to his son (BGU II 530; A.D. I), in which he complains that his κοινωνός has abandoned him and that, as a result, his property has been neglected: Ὁ κοινωνὸς ἡµῶν οὐ συνηργάσατο, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ µὴν τὸ ὕδρευµα ἀνεψήσθη, ἄλλως τε καὶ ὁ ὑδραγωγὸς συνεχώσθη ὑπὸ τῆς ἄµµου καὶ τὸ κτῆµα ἀγεώργητόν ἐστιν. Οὐδεὶς τῶν γεωργῶν ἠθέλησεν γεωργεῖν αὐτό (ll. 14– 24).247 From the letter itself, it is obvious that Hermokrates and his unnamed κοινωνός cultivated a property in partnership, though one is not sure whether they co-owned the estate, or sublet it on half-shares from someone else. The mention of γεωργοί (l. 22) who have also deserted their work suggests that Hermokrates at least owned some of the land.248 J. Hengstl thus deduced that Hermokrates was an “anscheinend Landeigentümer,” while “dieser κοινωνός” was probably “ein Pächter” with whom he had formed “eine Gesellschaft, indem sie die Bewirtschaftung nach bestimmten Teilen durchführen und den Ertrag entsprechend ihrem Arbeitsanteil verteilen.”249 Yet another illuminating document is the letter of a certain Didymos to his συνκοινωνός Allion (l. 19, P.Bad. II 19B; A.D. 110), who happens to have spent a significant amount towards their joint enterprise (εἰς τὴν κοινὴν ἡµῶν γεωργία̣ ν, l. 20). In consequence, Didymos offers to pay Allion’s share of public taxes and to issue him with the bank’s receipt (σύµβολον) later on. For Taubenschlag, this payment must have consisted of the customary “Abrechnung zwischen den Gesellschaftern” at the con245 Taubenschlag, “societas,” 66. Cf. Taubenschlag, LGRE, 389–90; del Chiaro, Le contrat, 130. 246 Preisigke, WB 1:815. 247 I.e., our partner did not work with us, and the cistern has not been cleaned, and besides the irrigation channel is clogged by sand, and the property (left) uncultivated. None of the farmers was willing to cultivate it. Cf. MM, s.v. κοινωνός; Arzt-Grabner, “Onesimus,” in Philemon (ed. Tolmie), 136. For a similar letter of remonstrance, see P.Oxy. III 532 (A.D. II) in appendix B. 248 Both Johnson and Kloppenborg consider them to be tenants. Johnson, Roman Egypt, 208, #107; John S. Kloppenborg, The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 490. 249 Hengstl, C.Pap.Hengstl 1, p. 33. Cf. Taubenschlag, “societas,” 73.

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

193

clusion of the partnership (cf. P.Hamb. I 69).250 Several analogous agreements identifying business partners as κοινωνοί have been preserved, but space constraints forbid us from examining them in detail here.251 These can be consulted in appendix B. One should not think that such partnerships were limited to agricultural exploitation, however. The fragmentary agreement concerning a lake, P.Amh. II 100 (A.D. 198–211),252 and the lease P.Oxy. XLVI 3270 (A.D. 309), plainly demonstrate that such business collaboration could also be applied to other kinds of enterprise, such as the management of fishing concessions.253 Similarly, it is apparent from documents such as P.Mich. V 354 (A.D. 52), or P.Oxy. XLIX 3468 (A.D. I), that properties, whether land, houses, or slaves, could be owned in common, on shares, by two or several κοινωνοί – whether it was pro diviso (divided) or pro indiviso (undivided) is not always clear when it is not as explicitly stated as in P.Stras. IV 247 (A.D. 550/552).254 On the whole, despite the lack of clarity of some of these documents, it is reasonable to conclude that, in most cases, persons designated as κοινωνοί were bound by certain socio-economic and legal obligations, which could sometimes be brought to bear in official litigation. This is particularly well illustrated in a couple of petitions from A.D. II. In the first instance (P.Mich. VI 426; A.D. 199/200?), a man complains that he has been made by force (τῇ ἑαυτῶν βίᾳ καὶ αὐθαδίᾳ, l. 10), and through deceit, the κοινωνός of the village elders (πρεσβύτεροι) in order to perform

250

Taubenschlag, “societas,” 70. Cf. P. Amh. II 94 (A.D. 208); P.Stras. V 458 (A.D. 228); PSI IV 306 (A.D. II– III?); SB V 7666 (A.D. 330); P.Lips. I 21 (A.D. 382); P.Lips. I 24 (A.D. IV?); P.Oxf. 16 (A.D. VI–VII); SB XIV 12049 (A.D. VI–VII?); PSI VIII 931 (A.D. 524); P.Cair.Masp. II 67158 (A.D. 568); and possibly P.Ammon I 3 (A.D. 348). The last example is a difficult case. One cannot really be sure about Ammon’s relation to Polykrates (col. 5, ll. 22–23), whom he greets as his brother in col. 6, l. 23, and about his relation to the προστάτης (perhaps an administrator or steward), who is also mentioned in col. 5, ll. 22–23. They seem to have been associates in the management of the family estate, but not necessarily joint lessors or lessees. See Willis and Maresch, P.Ammon I 3, pp. 45 (n. 26), 46 (n. 22). On the role of a προστάτης in such estates, see also briefly Dennis P. Kehoe, Management and Investment on Estates in Roman Egypt during the Early Empire (Bonn: R. Habelt, 1992), 27. 252 Cf. LSJ, s.v. κοινωνός; MM, s.v. κοινωνός; BDAG, s.v. κοινωνός 1; San Nicolò, Vereinswesen 1:150–52; Preisigke, WB 1:815; Taubenschlag, “societas,” 65. 253 Cf. Taubenschlag, “societas,” 67; Herrmann, BodenPacht, 218. 254 Cf. P.Fam.Tebt. 23 (A.D. 123); P.Oxy. XLV 3242 (A.D. 185–187); P.Oxy. XLIII 3126 (A.D. 328); P.Lond. III 1164 (A.D. 212); P.Oxy. L 3591 (A.D. 219); P.Oxy. XLI 2954 (A.D. III); P.Panop. 27 (A.D. 323); P.Berl.Zill. 4 (ca. A.D. 350); PSI V 452 (A.D. IV); P.Oxy. XLVIII 3396 (A.D. IV); BGU XIX 2817 (A.D. 500). 251

194

Part One: Philological Survey

some liturgy (despite his immunity from such corvée).255 On this occasion, the complainant was well aware of the obligations implied by becoming a κοινωνός of the πρεσβύτεροι, which he was unwilling, and seemingly unable (or so he claims), to fulfil. In P.Oxy. XXII 2342 (A.D. 102), on the other hand, a wine merchant (οἰνέµπορος, l. 3) named Apion appeals for redress to the prefect of Egypt against the widow of his former κοινωνός and δανειστής (ll. 4–5), Pasion, whom he accuses of withholding his share of the proceeds of wine sales and of hoarding the stock he had deposited with Pasion (ll. 4–5).256 The case is rather complex, and we need not delve into its intricacies.257 What is interesting to note, however, is that Apion considered that his status as Pasion’s former κοινωνός still entitled him to some legal standing even two years after Pasion’s death, so that he could challenge the handling of his business interests by his partner’s heir and successor, in this case, his wife (cf. P.Oxy. III 493).258 This is quite remarkable considering that, according 255

The petitioner complains that they have enrolled him under a fake name: χρησάµενοι ὡς κοινωνῷ (= κοινωνὸν) αὐτῶν ἀναδοθέντα ὡς Ὧρον Ἀπολιναρίου ἀνύπαρκτον ὄνοµα ὃ καὶ ἀγνοῶ (i.e., they treated me … as their associate, giving me the fake name of Horos, son of Apolinarios which I do not even know; ll. 10–12). For more information on the identity and background of this serial-plaintiff, see Benjamin Kelly, Petitions, Litigation, and Social Control in Roman Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 138– 43. 256 In context, it is clear that Apion and Pasion had formed a business partnership. Cf. Jakab, “Berenike,” 66: “Der Klägeranspruch läßt also darauf schließen, daß unsere κοινωνοί irgendeine wirtschaftliche Tätigkeit auf gemeinsamen Gewinn und Verlust, also eine Gesellschaft, betrieben haben.” Cf. ibid., 78. 257 It appears that Apion was in charge of the commercial side of the business (cf. οἰνέµπορος, l. 3), while Pasion and his wife Berenike took care of the production, storage, and accounting (cf. the account P.Oxy. VI 985 written in Berenike’s hand). Pasion also seems to have been Apion’s creditor (δανειστής, l. 5), and not his debtor (cf. ed. pr.), which suggests that he had either borrowed money from Pasion to run his business or bought some of the wine on credit, some of which was then kept as guarantee in Pasion’s store (cf. ἐπ’ οἴνωι, l. 19; ἐνθήκη, ll. 14, 31). The dispute relates to the amount of Apion’s IOUs (a total of 5,249 drachmas and 4 obols, he claims; ll. 23–26), which, he alleges, Berenike has grossly inflated in her declaration to the strategos (i.e., 3,000 drachmas in I.O.U.’s plus 5,000 on the wine as guarantee; ll. 18–19). Meanwhile, she has sold some of his wine that was held as security without giving him a share of the profits or subtracting it from his debt. For a more detailed discussion, see Peter van Minnen, “Berenice, A Business Woman from Oxyrhynchus: Appearance and Reality,” in The Two-Faces of Graeco-Roman Egypt: Greek and Demotic and Greek-Demotic Texts and Studies Presented to P. W. Pestman (eds. A. M. F. W. Verhoogt and S. P. Vleeming; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 59–70; Jakab, “Berenike,” 63–85. 258 Apion affirms that Pasion died in the second year of Trajan’s reign (ll. 3–4), while his petition to the prefect is dated from the fifth year of Trajan’s reign (ll. 34–35). For a concise examination of this unique joint-will between Pasion and his wife, see Minnen, “Berenice,” 61–65.

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

195

to Roman law, a partnership was naturally dissolved after the death of one of the partners (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.152; Justinian, Inst. 3.25.5; Dig. 17.2.65.9, 11) – except in the case of tax-farming partnerships, i.e., societates vectigalium (cf. Dig. 17.2.59 pr.).259 P.Par. 17 (A.D. 153), for example, provides clear evidence that the partnership obligations of a tax-farmer could be inherited. Following the death of his father and testator, a certain Ammonios became the new partner of the tax-collector Hermogenes and served as a signatory of a sale contract (ll. 21–24).260 In this instance, Taubenschlag suggested that “der Erbe kraft seiner Erbenstellung vielleicht in die Rolle eines nichtgerierenden socius in die Gesellschaft eintrat.”261 Yet, he remained unsure vis-àvis private commercial partnerships,262 to which the specific rules regarding tax-farming leases do not seem to have applied.263 Apion’s appeal to his former status as a κοινωνός may well have been purely rhetorical.264 Alternatively, he may have considered that the fraud related to profits earned subsequently to Pasion’s death while using the partnership’s funds, as well as to debts he owed to Pasion, and which he suspected his heir, Berenike, to have inflated (while not subtracting his share of the profits from the total outstanding sum). In which case, he would have had the right to pursue an actio pro socio (cf. Dig. 17.2.63.8, 17.2.65.9).265 One also gains the sense from the explicit formulation of certain leases that a lessor had to be forthright as to the number of associates he or she intended to take, especially in the case of tax-farming leases. This is well illustrated in the following application for the concession of a monopoly 259

Cf. A. Manigk, “Societas,” PW[2] 5:773; Buckland, Text-Book, 51; Berger, EDRL, s.v. publicani, 661; s.v. societas, 708–709; Jakab, “Berenike,” 67; Malmendier, “Roman Shares,” 36–37. 260 The petition to the strategos of Arsinoites, BGU XI 2067 (A.D. II), seems to evoke a similar situation as it begins with the causal clause ἐπὶ ἐτε̣λ̣ [εύτη]σεν ὁ κοιν[ω]νὸ[ς] ἡµ̣ [ῶ]ν̣ Π̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ – ca. ? – ] Χ̣ αι̣ρ̣ή µ̣ [ο]ν̣ ος ἀξιο̣ ῦ[µεν – ca. ? – ] (i.e., since our partner P... ?, son of Chairemon, died, we considered … ?). Unfortunately, the rest of the letter has been lost. 261 Taubenschlag, “societas,” 71. Cf. idem, LGRE, 391. 262 Ibid., 74 (n. 1): “Welche Wirkungen der Tod des einen socius auf die Sozietät ausübt, ist aus den Papyri nicht ersichtlich. [P.]Heid. 18 (61/2 n. Chr.), wo ein solcher Fall vorliegt (Tod des einen socius), bezieht sich nur auf die Auswirkungen desselben auf das Verhältnis zum Verpächter.” 263 Cf. Jakab, “Berenike,” 67, n. 29: “Die Steuerpachtgesellschaften sind also Ausnahmen, die keine allgemeinen Schlüsse zulassen.” 264 Cf. Jakab, “Berenike,” 69. 265 As del Chiaro explains: “L’action pro socio pouvait exister entre l’associé et l’héritier d’un associé, sans que toutefois l’héritier ne rentre dans la société en qualité d’associé, mais de créancier ou de débiteur.” Del Chiaro, Le contrat, 202. Cf. Watson, “Evolution,” 15; Watson, Obligations, 131; Watson, Spirit, 137.

196

Part One: Philological Survey

on oil sales and taxes at Soknopaiou Nesos (P.Amh. II 92, A.D. 162/163): βούλοµαι ἐπιχωρηθῆναι παρὰ σοῦ … κοτυλίζειν πᾶν ἔλαιον ἐν ἐργαστηρίῳ ἑνὶ ἐν κώµῃ Ἡρακλείᾳ Θεµίστου µερίδος … οὐχ ἕξω δὲ κ[ο]ινωνὸν οὐδὲ µίσθιον γ̣ε ν̣ ̣ [ό]µ̣ ε̣νον τῆς ὠνῆς ὑποτελῆ, δώσω [δ]ὲ καὶ ὑπὲρ διπλώµατος ἵππω[ν; cf. BL I, p. 3] δύο τ[ὰ] κατὰ συνηθίαν ν[ό]µ[ι]µα (ll. 3–23).266 The word ὠνή cannot mean purchase or sale here, since the contract is a lease (cf. µισθῶσαι, l. 25). Rather, it should be understood as referring to the taxfarming contract to which any other partner, or employee, would have also been liable (τῆς ὠνῆς ὑποτελῆς).267 The frequent mention of partners is further explained by the fact that, depending on the terms of the agreement, they could also serve as guarantors.268 This is made evident in P.Oxy. XIV 1626 (A.D. 325), a contract for the superintendence of the transport of animals to Babylon which makes mention of δεκανοί and their κοινωνοί, who serve as securities for the payment of an ἐπιµελητής: Αὐρήλιοι Ἀ̣λ̣ όις Χωοῦτος καὶ Ἡρακλῆ[ς] Πο̣ ύ̣δ̣ ε ν̣ ̣ τος καὶ οἱ κοινωνοὶ οἱ πάντες δεκανοὶ ἀπὸ κώµη[ς] Πανευεὶ µετ’ ἐγγυητοῦ εἰς ἔκτισιν τῶν φανη[σο]µένων µισθῶν Πτολεµαίου Πτολεµαίου κτλ. (ll. 1–5).269 Overall, it appears that the resort (and reference) to associates was a common feature of ancient business contracts. The well-known lease of fishing rights from Oxyrhynchos, P.Oxy. XLVI 3270 (A.D. 309), which

266 I.e., I wish to be granted from you … (the right) to sell all the oil in one workshop in the village of Herakleia of the division of Themistos… and I will have neither partner nor hired worker who is liable for the contract, and I will give for a certificate two horses (?) as is customary. A similar phrasing is found in P.Aberd. 45 (A.D. 141) and P.Bodl. I 34 (A.D. 158–159). See also the similar tax-farming agreement in P.Oxy. XLIII 3092 (A.D. 217). 267 Cf. LSJ, s.v. ὠνή II; Grenfell and Hunt, P.Amh. II 92, p. 195; Johnson, Roman Egypt, 368–69, #210. 268 Whether this applied to state tax-farming leases (e.g., P.Rev.) remains a moot question, partly because the extant evidence is not extremely clear on this point. Rostovtzeff’s assumption that socii/µέτοχοι/κοινωνοί could also function as guarantors (praedes/ἔγγυοι) has been contested by Steinwenter. See Rostovtzeff, Staatspacht, 348– 49; Steinwenter, “Gesellschaftsrechte,” in Studi Riccobono (ed. Riccobono), 491–93 (esp. n. 19). Wilcken also seems to have understood the µέτοχοι/κοινωνοί and ἔγγυοι to be distinct: “Sowohl die Namen der Gesellschafter (κοινῶνες) wie der Bürgen mußten in einer γραφή der Behörde eingereicht werden: wer nicht in der γραφή stand, durfte sich nicht beteiligen.” Wilcken, W.Chr., p. 183. Cf. idem, Ostraka, 542, 547–55; G. M. Harper Jr., “The Relation of Ἀρχώνης, Μέτοχοι, and Ἔγγυοι to Each Other, to the Government and to the Tax Contract in Ptolemaic Egypt,” Aegyptus 14.2 (1934): 269–85; Llewelyn, NewDocs 9, 47–49, #18. 269 I.e., Aurelius Alois, son of Choous, and Aurelius Herakles, son of Pudens, and their associates, all dekanoi from the village of Paneuei, with their surety for the full payment of the wages that shall have accrued to Ptolemaios, son of Ptolemaios.

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

197

mentions both the κοινωνοί of the contractors and the κοινωνοί of the lessors, is a case in point.270 This being said, we should be careful not to over-generalise the economic and legal implications of the term κοινωνός, which, in the majority of the papyri we have examined, are determined by the contractual nature of the documents themselves and the agreements settled therein. More generally, the term could simply refer to people who shared in the same professional (or illicit) activity, without necessarily being bound by a partnership. Or, it could designate members of a professional collegium, such as the pork butchers of PSI III 202 (ca. A.D. 338), or the carpet weavers of P.Leid.Inst. 62 (A.D. 370–400).271 These remarks would also seem to apply to the two tanners or leather dealers of PSI V 465 (A.D. 264/268), the shepherds of P.Erl.Diosp. 2 (A.D. 314), the sawyers of P.Oxy. XIV 1752 (A.D. 378), the brick-makers of P.Oxy. XVII 2143 (A.D. 293), the donkeydriver of P.Harr. I 93 (A.D. 294?), the scoundrels of CPR XVIIA 9b (A.D. 320), the irrigators of P.Oxy. XII 1590 (A.D. IV), the farmers of P.Mert. I 41 (A.D. 406), and the potters of O.Ashm.Shelt. 35 (A.D. VI). We will never know for sure whether these people had formally contracted a partnership, which remains a strong possibility in some instances. The authors of these documents might have simply wanted to present themselves, in general terms, as collaborators or trade colleagues, not unlike in Luke 5:10 where the sons of Zebedee are identified as Simon’s κοινωνοί (who could well have been his formal business associates by virtue of some partnership agreement).272 The nature of Roman law itself, its consensual contracts especially, is partly responsible for the persistent ambiguity. We should conclude this section by observing briefly that κοινωνός is never found to bear a religious connotation in papyri. One might have been tempted to see a particular theological usage in the late partnership contract P.Cair.Masp. II 67158 (A.D. 568), in which associate carpenters are 270

ll. 4–8: Αὐρηλίῳ Σαραπίωνι Ἀφύγχιος ἀπὸ τῆς λαµ(πρᾶς) καὶ λαµ(προτάτης) Ὀξυρυγχιτῶν πόλεως καὶ τοῖς κοινωνοῖς µισθωταῖς ε̣ἰ̣χθυηρᾶς πόλεως Ὀξυρυγ’χίτου vac. παρὰ Αὐρηλίου Λουκίου Λουκίου ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς πόλε[ω]ς [καὶ τ]ῶν κοινω[ν]ῶν (i.e., to Aurelius Sarapion, son of Aphynchis, from the illustrious and most illustrious city of the Oxyrhynchites, and to his partners, contractors of the fishing concession of the city of the Oxyrhynchites. vac. From Aurelius Lucius, son of Lucius, of he same city, and his partners). 271 The mention of a µινιάρχη (l. 3), i.e., a monthly president, suggests that this could be a collegium. 272 Horsley develops a similar reflection about the term µέτοχος: “The word is sufficiently loose to refer to something less formal than a legally-arranged business partnership. ‘Two small family fishing businesses might co-operate regularly or occasionally with each other, and in their acts of co-operation refer to one another as µέτοχοι’.” Horsley, NewDocs 1, 85, #40. Cf. Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 52; Hauck, TDNT 3:804, s.v. κοινωνός; Baumert, Koinonein, 273–74.

198

Part One: Philological Survey

identified as συνκοινωνοί and συµπραγµατευταὶ τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ προνοίᾳ (l. 11). However, in context, the substantive τῇ προνοίᾳ should probably be understood as an instrumental dative, rather than as referring to some spiritual blessing the κοινωνοί might have partaken of (in which case a partitive genitive would have been expected). This suggests that religious language had little influence on the use of κοινωνός in papyri, which is a further indicator that, in contrast with later patristic texts, the term was not thought to have any intrinsic theological connotation at first.273 We should also note how papyrological sources bring some nuance to our understanding of the epigraphic evidence. As we have remarked earlier, the word is never found to designate the socii of societates publiccanorum, which sheds further insight on the Roman administration of taxes in Egypt. This being said, the versatility of the term observed in inscriptions is certainly confirmed by the papyri. As É. Jakab has aptly pointed out: “Von dieser wenig spezifischen Terminologie her könnten unsere κοινωνοί ebenso Gesellschafter wie Miteigentümer, Miterben oder gemeinsame Pächter beweglicher bzw. unbeweglicher Sachen gewesen sein.”274 This reinforces once more the importance of the context and the social setting in determining the specific connotation of the cognate in its various usages in documentary sources. 5.3.3 Κοινωνία In papyri, just as in literary sources,275 the term κοινωνία is very frequently associated with γάµος or βίος to denote marital union,276 though this may not always be the case.277 Unlike κοινωνός, κοινωνία is found to have a religious connotation on one occasion, that is, in a late work contract for a 273

Cf. PGL, s.v. κοινωνός; Popkes, “Gemeinschaft,” RAC 9:1133–45; L.-M. Dewailly, “Communio-Communicatio: Brèves notes sur l’histoire d’un sémantème,” PSPT 54 (1970): 54–55. 274 Jakab, “Berenike,” 66. 275 E.g., Plato, Leg. 771e; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, [Rhet.] 2.3 (l. 13); Philo, Spec. 3.29; Josephus, Ant. 20.18. 276 E.g., BGU IV 1051 (30 B.C.–A.D. 14), 1052 (14/13 B.C.), 1099 (30 B.C.–A.D. 14), 1100 (30 B.C.–A.D. 14); P.Oxy. XII 1473 (A.D. 201); P.Sakaon 48 (A.D. 343). The commonness of the expression is attested by its mention in documents from the Judean desert (P.Yadin I 18, A.D. 128) or from even further east (P.Dura 30, A.D. 232). See our appendix B for a more comprehensive list. 277 Indeed, in P.Princ. II 38 R (ca. A.D. 264) the collocation of κοινωνία with βίος clearly refers to the lifelong co-ownership of some property. Cf. Jane Rowlandson, ed., Women and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt: A Sourcebook (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 197–98, #146; Burnet, L’Égypte, 225–26, #155. The translation provided on the Papyri.info online platform for this papyrus is therefore misleading. It cannot mean “the commonality of the marriage of Aline.” See online: http://papyri.info/ ddbdp/p.princ;2;38r. Accessed September 2012.

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

199

deacon (CPR V 11; early A.D. IV?). Here it seems to refer to the communion or eucharist of the laity (λαικῆς κοινωνίας), a theological connotation which had become quite common in patristic literature by then.278 However, one cannot be entirely certain due to the lacunose state of the papyrus.279 By far the most frequent use of κοινωνία is with the prepositions ἐπί, ἀπό, or κατά, to denote the joint-ownership or joint-exploitation (through a lease in partnership) of a piece of property, be it some land,280 a house (or share thereof),281 animals,282 a workshop,283 or even some slaves.284 Without precise contextual information, however, it is sometimes difficult to ascertain which legal arrangement was intended, whether it consisted of a jointownership (communio pro diviso/indiviso), a joint-lease, a colonia partiaria, or even a societas omnium bonorum. Understandably, space constraints prevent us from reviewing all of the evidence in detail, and we shall only draw attention to a selection of the most relevant material. A first, well-preserved example is found in P.Princ. II 37 (A.D. 255– 256), a receipt (in chirographic format) for the rental payment of some farmland: ἀπέσχον παρ’ ὑµῶν τὸ ἐκφόριον ὧν γεωργεῖταί µου ἀρουρῶν ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ περὶ κώ(µην) Τάνιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος δευτέρου ἔτου[ς] (ll. 5–

278 Cf. PGL, s.v. κοινωνία C. But see Pseudo-Zonaras, p. 1235, s.v. Κοινωνία: ἡ τῶν θείων µυστηρίων µετάληψις, διὰ τὸ τὴν πρὸς Χριστὸν ἡµῖν χαρίζεσθαι ἕνωσιν, καὶ κοινωνοὺς ἡµᾶς τῆς αὐτοῦ βασιλείας ποιεῖν (i.e., koinōnia: the participation in the divine mysteries, through the union with Christ granted to us and our establishment as partners of his reign); p. 1239, s.v. Κοινωνία: ἡ ἐλεηµοσύνη. παρὰ τῷ Ἀποστόλῳ (he then quotes Rom 15:26). 279 The exact meaning of the sentence is indeed very difficult to grasp. Schmelz is probably not too far from the mark when he translates: “Da ich heute zu deinem Dienst ordiniert wurde und dir gegenüber eine Erklärung abgegeben habe, dass ich mich von deiner Bischofsherrschaft nicht entfernen werde … Wenn ich mich ohne deine Zustimmung werde entfernen wollen, und auch ohne schriftliche Erlaubnis, kann ich natürlich an deinem Dienst nicht teilnehmen, sondern nur am Gottesdienst der Laien.” Georg Schmelz, Kirchliche Amtsträger im spätantiken Ägypten (Munich: K. G. Saur, 2002), 43. Cf. Ewa Wipszycka, “Il vescovo et il suo clero: A proposito di CPR V 11,” JJP 22 (1992): 67–81. 280 E.g., P.Flor. I 41 (A.D. 140); P.Col. VII 124 (A.D. 298–302); P.Col. VII 125 (A.D. 307); P.Sakaon 2 and 3 (A.D. 300), or P.Corn. 20 (A.D. 302). 281 E.g., P.Stras. V 471 bis (A.D. 505); P.Stras. IV 247 (A.D. 550/552); P.Stras. IV 248 (A.D. 560); P.Ross.Georg. V 32 (ca. A.D. 569/570); P.Lond. III 1023 (A.D. V–VI?); P.Flor. I 13 (A.D. VI–VII). 282 E.g., PSI X 1119 (A.D. 156); P.Sakaon 71 (A.D. 306). 283 E.g., BGU XIX 2822 (A.D. 526–527). 284 E.g., M.Chr. 237 (A.D. 149).

200

Part One: Philological Survey

8).285 In this instance, no further detail is given as to the terms of the agreement between the three lessees, though it is apparent that they must have cultivated the owner’s field on shares.286 This seems to be confirmed by a lease that most likely relates to P.Princ. II 37,287 SB IV 7474 (A.D. 254), in which the same three lessees rented an undetermined number of arouras from the same landlord ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ, on half-shares (κατὰ τὸ ἥµι̣[σ]υ µέρος, l. 3), for a period of five years (cf. l. 5). Based on the latter document, it is quite clear that the lessees had formed a partnership with one another, standing as mutual securities (ἐ̣ξ ἀλληλεγ’γύης, l. 3), so as to work together (εἰς τὴν κο̣ ι ν̣ ὴν ἡµ̣ ῶν γεωργία̣ ν, l. 12) the remaining half of the owner’s land, who may have acted as a fourth partner (possibly the ἄ•̣ ος γεωργός of l. 16).288 Similar share-cropping arrangements κατὰ/ἐπὶ κοινωνίαν from A.D. III are recorded in the slightly later account P.Bad. II 26 (A.D. 292/3),289 and in the receipt P.Cair.Isid. 107 (ca. A.D. 250–300). Overall, however, they remain rather scant for this period.290 From A.D. IV onwards, the number of land leases contracted on a partnership basis seems to increase slightly, which suggests that share-

285

I.e., I received from you the payment for the arouras (of my land) which is cultivated in partnership by the village of Tanis for the current second year. Note also the aorist form of ἀπέχω, i.e., ἀπέσχον. 286 Cf. E. H. Kase, P.Princ. II 37, p. 30. 287 Cf. Rupprecht, Studien, 35. Hoesen and Johnson note that the plot of land mentioned in the receipt, κλῆρος Πτιαπ̣ (l. 5, P.Princ. II 37), seems different from the one mentioned in the lease, which was located in ἐν τόπῳ Φθ … ? (l. 4, SB IV 7474). But Kase has challenged this understanding, arguing that the receipt and the lease are concerned with one and the same plot. See Henry B. van Hoesen and Allan C. Johnson, “A Lease of Crown Land on Papyrus,” TAPA 56 (1925): 217; E. H. Kase, P.Princ. II 37, pp. 31–32. 288 Cf. Hoesen and Johnson, “Lease,” 213–28 (esp. p. 221). Steinwenter considers that the partnership takes places between the three lessees only. The agreement with Herakleides comes under the more general category of lease. Steinwenter, “Gesellschaftsrechte,” in Studi Riccobono (ed. Riccobono), 499–500. Cf. Taubenschlag, LGRE, 358–59 (n. 18). 289 Note: Harrauer understands κατὰ [κοινων]ί̣αν̣ (l. 22) to refer to Hyperechios’ common ownership (“Besitzgemeinschaft”) of the land with Ales and the heir of Dioskoros. However, as Korp has shown, it is more likely that the latter two cultivated half of Hyperechios’ land as “Gesellschafter gemeinsam.” See Hermann Harrauer, “Hyperechios und seine Familie,” in Sixty-five Papyrological Texts (eds. F. A. J. Hoogendijk and B. P. Muhs; Boston: Brill, 2008), 187; Klass A. Worp, “P.Bad. II 26, 23, 30 und P.Berl.Zill. 3, 5,” ZPE 118 (1997): 243. 290 Cf. Hennig, Bodenpacht, 6. Hennig forgets to mention, however, that the lack of evidence during the early empire could simply be due to the poor preservation of documents dating from that period.

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

201

cropping either remained or became more popular in later antiquity.291 According to D. P. Kehoe, who took his cue from the jurist Gaius (Dig. 19.2.25.6), share-cropping indeed constituted “a widespread form of land tenure in the Roman world,” especially on imperial estates.292 It was known as colonia partiaria, a contract of a rather intricate legal nature which presents elements pertaining to locatio conductio (i.e., lease) and elements pertaining to societas (i.e., partnership).293 As in earlier documents, in many of these leases the prepositions ἐπί, ἀπό, and κατά, are used interchangeably in conjunction with κοινωνία, and without altering the significance of the prepositional phrase, to indicate the joint-exploitation of agricultural properties. This is plainly apparent in the contract P.Sakaon 71 (A.D. 306), a rather complex five-year lease for the rearing of a flock of sheep and goats signed between its co-owners (cf. l. 5: τὰ ὑπάρχοντα ὑµῖν κοινῶς ἐξ ἴσου) and a certain Aurelius Zakaon. The parties agree to let Zakaon tend and increase the herd, which shall later be divided in half between the lessee and the owners: τὰ µὲν πρόβατα ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ ἐµοὶ µὲν τῷ µεµ̣ ισθωµ̣ έ̣ν̣ῳ ἡµί[σι µέρι ὑ]µῖν δὲ τοῖς κ[τήτορσι]ν τῷ λοιπῷ ἡµίσι µέρι τῶν κατ’ ἔτος ἐκβησοµένων ἐξ [αὐ]τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ [ληµµάτων] (ll. 12–14).294 For V. Arangio-Ruiz, who rendered ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ as in societate, this contract repre-

291

E.g., P.Sakaon 67 (A.D. 321/2); BGU II 586 (A.D. 324). See also possibly P.Sakaon 68 (A.D. 325); SB XIV 12131 (A.D. 553); P.Stras. V 474 (A.D. 553?); SB XVIII 13584 (A.D. VI); SB XX 14416 (A.D. VI); SB XIV 12051 (A.D. 541). Cf. Hennig, Bodenpacht, 6. Bowman noticed the same phenomenon in the Hermopolite nome in A.D. IV. Alan K. Bowman, “Landholding in the Hermopolite Nome in the Fourth Century A.D.,” JRS 75 (1985): 149. See also Johnson and West, Byzantine Egypt, 76–77; Waszynski, Bodenpacht, 149–50, 156; Herrmann, Bodenpacht, 208–209, 211, 218, 220; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 358–59 (n. 18); Taubenschlag, “societas,” 72; Montevecchi, La papirologia, 225. Note: the increase in documents could be purely accidental and due to their random preservation in subsequent centuries. 292 Dennis P. Kehoe, Investment, Profit, and Tenancy: The Jurists and the Roman Agrarian Economy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997), 11–12. Cf. Dennis P. Kehoe, The Economics of Agriculture on Roman Imperial Estates in North Africa (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 154–87. 293 Max Waaser, Die colonia partiaria des römischen Rechts (Berlin: Hermann, 1885), 16–19, 50–52. But see Waszynski, Bodenpacht, 148–60. Cf. S. von Bolla, “Nachträge: III. Teilpacht (colonia partiaria),” PW[1] 18: 2480–84; Szlechter, Le contrat, 180, 301–302; Berger, EDRL, s.v. coloni partiarii, 396. 294 I.e., as for the sheep (reared) in partnership, half a [share] (shall be) to me the lessee and the other half of the [profits] generated from them every year (shall be) to you the [owners]. The conditions of the lease appear to be slightly different with respect to the goats. However, the state of the papyrus does not permit to determine in which way it may have been so. What is apparent is that the lessee had to give the owner an increasing number of kids each year. Cf. Jouguet, P.Thead. 8, p. 76.

202

Part One: Philological Survey

sented a typical example of the agricultural partnerships envisaged by Roman jurists (cf. Dig. 17.2.52.2).295 Another classic, and remarkably well-preserved document from the same period is Aurelius Isidoros’ five-year lease of an olive grove (P.Col. VII 179, A.D. 300), whereby he agrees to rent two arouras in partnership and on half-shares with the owner, Aurelia Thermoutharion: βούλοµαι µισθ̣ώσ̣ [α]σθ[α]ι̣ παρὰ̣ σοῦ ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ ἡµίσει µέρ̣ ει τὰ[ς] ὑπαρχούσας σοι περὶ τὴν αὐτὴν κώµην Καρανείδα ἐλαιῶνο̣ ς ἀρούρας δύο (ll. 6–9).296 Isidoros consents to take at his charge the entire cost of production and maintenance of the grove (ll. 17–20), so that, after having given one extra artaba to the lessor (ll. 13–14), he may receive half a share of the harvest, while the owner, on whom is incumbent all public taxes, enjoys the other half (ll. 23–24).297 Isidoros must have been fairly accustomed to this kind of arrangement for, fifteen years later, in his petition to the prefect of Egypt, he described a similar partnership which he had contracted with two rogue landlords (P.Cair.Isid. 74, A.D. 315). He had leased twenty-five arouras on half-shares (ἐπὶ κοινωνί̣ᾳ̣ ἡµίσυ µέρου, l. 5), supplied seeds for sowing and hired both animals and workers to cultivate the land (ll. 6–10), but was eventually denied his share of the harvest (ll. 11–12).298 What is frustrating about these documents, however, is that they remain completely silent on the possible socio-economic reasons behind such lease agreements, reasons that may have been multiple due to the inherent complexities of agriculture. For Pliny, whose debt-crippled tenants neglected their land, share-cropping seems to have allowed him to share economic risks more equally between himself and his tenants, while retaining some control over their allocation of capital (cf. Ep. 9.37).299 This explanation accords rather well with Gaius’s legal exposition (Dig. 19.2.25.6): a partiarius colonus, as opposed to a tenant farmer (paying a fixed rent), 295 FIRA2 3.149, pp. 462–64. Taubenschlag considers it to be another example of colonia partiaria. Taubenschlag, LGRE, 370 (n. 14). 296 I.e., I wish to lease from you, in partnership, on half-shares two arouras of the olive grove belonging to you by the same village of Karanis. 297 Cf. Sarah B. Porges, “A Lease of an Olive Grove,” TAPA 92 (1961): 469–80; Bagnall, P.Col. VII 179, pp. 194–96; Kehoe, Management, 161. On the conditions of such arrangement see also Herrmann, Bodenpacht, 208–13. 298 See also its duplicate petition written to the strategos of the Arsinoite nome, P.Mert. II 91 (A.D. 316). Cf. Kehoe, Management, 162. 299 See Kehoe’s detailed and important study. Dennis P. Kehoe, “Allocation of Risk and Investment on the Estates of Pliny the Younger,” Chiron 18 (1988): 15–42. Cf. idem, Kehoe, Economics, 361; idem, “Approaches to Economic Problems in the Letters of Pliny the Younger: The Question of Risk in Agriculture,” ANRW 33.1:550–90. De Neeve is much more circumspect in his use of Pliny’s letters, however. See Pieter W. de Neeve, “A Roman Landowner and his Estates: Pliny the Younger,” Athenaeum 70 (1990): 363– 402 (esp. pp. 367, 390).

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

203

would share in all damnum et lucrum with his landlord as if in a societas (quasi societatis iure).300 Kehoe has thus suggested that share-cropping may have represented “a contractual arrangement [that was] better designed to deal with future uncertainty than the traditional system of leases for cash rents.”301 C. Grey has further proposed that it enabled farmers to share production costs more evenly across scattered and diversified landholdings, which resulted in the optimization of productivity, and, ultimately, in the improvement of their own subsistence302 – an explanation contested by some.303 In other words, such agricultural partnerships, or even collective ownership of agricultural facilities and plough animals (cf. Dig. 19.5.17.3; Cod. justin. 3.24.2), functioned as “mutual insurance against [economic] risk.”304 It must also be pointed out that, in the case of jointly owned property (communio), a partnership often imposed itself upon the landlords. 305 While a co-owner in communio pro diviso (divided co-ownership) could let his or her share of the land independently from the other – this was in theory impossible (Dig. 8.4.6.1), but in practise quite common306 – landlords in communio pro indiviso (undivided co-ownership) often had to “make a lease contract jointly with the tenant, dividing the rent according to the 300

Cf. Johnston, Roman Law, 64. On the financial significance of the terms damnum and lucrum, see especially Minaud, La comptabilité, 275–83. 301 Dennis P. Kehoe, Law and Rural Economy in the Roman Empire (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007), 108. Cf. ibid., 113–14; Kehoe, Investment, 222–23. 302 Cam Grey, “Revisiting the ‘problem’ of agri deserti in the Late Roman Empire,” JRA 20 (2007): 363–67; idem, Constructing Communities in the Late Roman Countryside (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 59. Farmers also resorted to fragmented landholdings, mixed cropping, and field rotation, to minimize the risk of disasters wiping out their entire harvest and to cope with the effects of flood fluctuations on production. See Thomas W. Gallant, Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece: Reconstructing the Rural Domestic Economy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991), 34–59; Marie DrewBear, “La paraphylaké des villages dans les baux fonciers byzantins du nome Hermopolite,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 2007 (ed. T. Gagos; Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Library, 2010), 193. On landholding fragmentation, see also Jane Rowlandson, Landowners and Tenants in Roman Egypt: The Social Relations of Agriculture in the Oxyrhynchite Nome (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 124–30. 303 Cf. Reden, Money, 121–22. 304 Grey, Communities, 71. 305 The legal category of consortium, which, according to Gaius (Inst. 3.154a), was a kind of societas once called ercto non cito (i.e., undivided, familial, common ownership), applied only to co-heirs. Cf. Rowlandson, Landowners, 144. For succinct definitions of these terms, see Berger, EDRL, s.v. communio, 400; s.v. consortium, 409; s.v. ercto non cito, 455; s.v. societas, 708–709. 306 Egon Weiss, “Communio pro diviso und pro indiviso in den Papyri,” APF 4 (1908): 339–41. Cf. Taubenschlag, LGRE, 241; Rowlandson, Landowners, 173 (n. 93).

204

Part One: Philological Survey

proportions owned.”307 Thus, in effect, “[m]any owners of common and undivided parcels of land, particularly if they were brothers, must have undertaken the agricultural work themselves in common, just as they might undertake a joint tenancy of private or public land” (cf. Dig. 10.2.25.16).308 In legal terms, such arrangements would have corresponded to a societas omnium bonorum, a partnership in which all the partners’ assets were held in common and exploited towards a mutual interest (cf. Dig. 10.3.1, 17.2.1.1–2).309 Additional documents introduce us to yet another usage and connotation of κοινωνία in papyri, i.e., to express joint-ownership (Besitzgemeinschaft). 310 This is particularly evident in PSI X 1119 (A.D. 156), wherein the prepositional phrase κατὰ κοινωνίαν indicates a couple’s joint acquisition of a house and a herd of oxen: Ὁ[µολο]γεῖ ∆ιονυσία … πεπρακέναι … τὰ ὑπάρ̣ χ̣ [οντα αὐτῇ] ὀικὰ καὶ βοικὰ κτή[νη] … τῷ αὐτῷ Σαραπίωνι κ̣ ατὰ κυνω̣ [νίαν] τ̣ο̣ ῦ̣ [ἡµίσους? µέρους? πρὸς] τὴν γυναῖκα αὐ̣τοῦ Σαραπιάδα (ll. 3– 11).311 Likewise, in the division of (inherited) property P.Flor. I 50 (A.D. 268), κατὰ κοινωνίαν is used repeatedly in reference to property assets, such as an irrigation system (ὕδρευµα, l. 3), and plots of land (κλῆρος/ µέρος, ll. 6–7, 10), which are owned in common (communio), i.e., “im Gemeinschaftseigentum.”312 This kind of prepositional construction seems to have been employed regardless of the type of property, the number of co-owners, or their social status.313 For instance, P.Vindob.Sal. 12 (A.D. 334/5) records the jointownership of a ἡλιαστήριον (i.e., sun-drying place),314 P.Kell. I 30 (A.D. 307 Rowlandson, Landowners, 173. On the legal aspects of communio pro diviso/ indiviso, see Weiss, “Communio,” 330–65; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 239–43. 308 Rowlandson, Landowners, 173. Cf. Papathomas, P.Heid. VII 405, pp. 171–72. 309 Zimmermann, Obligations, 453, 465–66. 310 Cf. Preisigke, WB 1:815. 311 I.e., Dionysia acknowledges … to have sold … her property and a herd (?) of oxen … to Sarapion (to be owned) in common [in equal shares?] with his wife Sarapiada. 312 Mees, Organisationsformen, 368. Cf. M. A. H. el Abbadi, “P.Flor. 50: Reconsidered,” in Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Papyrologists, Oxford, 24-31 July 1974 (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1975), 91–96; Kehoe, Management, 99. See also Johannes Herrmann, Kleine Schriften zur Rechtsgeschichte (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1990), 189. 313 Rowlandson notes though that “joint ownership was probably most prevalent among small-scale landowners, especially those most influenced by Egyptian culture.” Rowlandson, Landowners, 173. 314 On the function of a ἡλιαστήριον, see Katelijn Vandorpe and Willy Clarysse, “A Greek Winery for Sale in a Fayum Demotic Papyrus,” in The Two-Faces of Graeco-Roman Egypt: Greek and Demotic and Greek-Demotic Texts and Studies Presented to P. W. Pestman (eds. A. M. F. W. Verhoogt and S. P. Vleeming; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 129–30;

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

205

363) that of a farmstead, P.Lond. III 994 (A.D. 517) that of a potter’s workshop, BGU XVII 2684 (A.D. 555) that of a house,315 and P.Lond. V 1769 and SB XX 14416 (A.D. VI) that of a vineyard with its appurtenances.316 In certain cases, as A. Papathomas has noted, the expression κατὰ κοινωνίαν clearly describes the legal state of communio pro diviso.317 By contrast, in the sale contract P.Lips. I 6 (A.D. 306) and the lease P.Flor. I 41 (A.D. 140), it is clear that the arouras of common and undivided land (ἀπὸ κοινῶν καὶ ἀδιαιρέτων ἀρουρῶν) were held in communio pro indiviso.318 One cannot always be certain of the exact legal situation, however, as P.Iand. VII 142 (A.D. 164/5), P.Corn. 12 (A.D. 283), and P.Cair.Masp. I 67098 (A.D. 540–565), illustrate.319 On a rare occasion, the preposition is omitted (or forgotten), such as in the receipt for a loan P.Lond. II 311 (cf. BL I, p. 265; A.D. 149), in which κοινωνία is used adverbially to denote the joint-ownership of a piece of property, which consists of two house-bred slaves who are pledged as a security: τὰ ὑπ[ά]ρχοντα αὐτ̣ῇ̣ δουλικὰ σωµά[τια?] δύο τρ[ε]φ̣ [όµεν]α [κ]ο̣ ι ν̣ ωνίᾳ [τῆ]ς Ταµ[ύσ]θας γερδιαίν̣η[ς] (ll. 12–13).320 Since the (female) weaver Tamystha is not mentioned in the rest of the document, one has to assume that she is one of the co-owners of the slave.321 While such situation could prove to be quite complex legally, especially at manumission (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.154b), it was in fact fairly common.322 Éva Jakab, Risikomanagement beim Weinkauf: Periculum und Praxis im Imperium Romanum (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2009), 24–27. 315 Cf. PSI XII 1239 (A.D. 430); SB VI 9586 (A.D. 600); SB VI 8988 (A.D. 647). 316 For similar examples of joint-ownership of land, see P.Flor. I 41 (A.D. 140); P.Sakaon 2 and 3 (A.D. 300); P.Corn. 20 (A.D. 302); P.Lips. I 6 (A.D. 306); P.Oxy. XLV 3255 (A.D. 315); P.Oxy. I 103 (A.D. 316); P.Lips. I 21 (A.D. 382); P.Heid. VII 405 (A.D. 577). Cf. Rowlandson, Landowners, 173 (n. 93), 350. 317 As examples, Papathomas adduced P.Heid. VII 405, BGU XII 2157, 2158, 2174, SB VI 9193, P.Vind.Sal. 12, P.Lond. V 1769. See Papathomas, P.Heid. VII 405, pp. 171– 72. Cf. Thomas Kruse, “Drei Heidelberger Papyri aus byzantinischer Zeit,” ZPE 88 (1991): 133–35; Wegener, P.Oxf. 16, p. 76; Hans-Albert Rupprecht, Kleine Einführung in die Papyruskunde (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1994), 129–30. 318 Cf. Weiss, “Communio,” 353; Rupprecht, Einführung, 129–30. 319 Cf. P.Lond. V 1769 (A.D. VI); P.Lond. V 1878 (A.D. VI); SB XX 14416 (A.D. VI). 320 I.e., (and let Thaesis give) … her two house-bred slaves jointly-owned with Tamystha the weaver. 321 This is what the editors of LSJ have also understood. See LSJ, s.v. κοινωνία 1. 322 The joint-ownership of slaves is well attested. See for instance W. W. Buckland, Roman Law of Slavery: The Condition of the Slave in Private Law from Augustus to Justinian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1908), 372–96; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 76–77; P. R. C. Weaver, Familia Caesaris: A Social Study of the Emperor’s Freedmen and Slaves (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 62–63. On the legal difficulties associated with the manumission of jointly-owned slaves, see Mitteis’ discussion of

206

Part One: Philological Survey

Beside this prepositional usage, κοινωνία can also be found on its own to denote essentially a business partnership. This is most obvious in P.Bour. 13 (A.D. 98), in which two traders from Memphis, Petosiris and Petermouthis, have agreed to form a partnership to sell lentils at a local market: [Πετο]σ[ῖ]ρ[ις Ἰ]ρανούπ[ιος] καὶ Πετερµούθης Ἀ̣πύγχιος, ἀµφότεροι τῶν ἀπὸ Μέµφεως φα[κ]εψῶν, ὁµολογοῦ[σ]ι τεθεῖσθαι [πρ]ὸς ἑαυτοὺς µετοχὴν καὶ κοινωνίαν (l. 1).323 In this case, the idea of business association, i.e., of “[e]in Gesellschaftsvertrag,”324 is unmistakable and is confirmed by the proximity of the term µετοχή, which, as we have briefly noted previously, also frequently describes a commercial or a tax-farming partnership in papyri.325 A. C. Johnson certainly recognised the economic connotation of the (seemingly redundant) collocation, which he translated as “company and partnership.”326 Further down the document, the modalities of the contract are then articulated more specifically: the partners shall divide the cost of the concession (φόρος ὀρβιοπωλίου, l. 4), and receive an equal share of the profits: τὸ δὲ µετὰ ταῦτα περιεσόµενον καθαρὸν ἐπ[ι]γένηµα ἔ̣σ̣ τ̣α̣ ι (̣ ?) εἰς ἴσα καὶ ὅµ[οι]α µέρ[η δ]ύο (l. 6; cf. l. 3).327 Finally, the agreement concludes with a clause reinforcing the legal validity of the partnership: Petermouthis shall have a right of exaction (τῆς περὶ ἁπάντω̣ ν̣ πράξεως, l. 7) over Petosiris’ property through legal action (ἐ̣κ̣ δίκη[ς], l. 8), should the latter defraud him in any way. Overall, the legal and commercial tenor of the document dispels any possible doubt as to the nature of this partnership, and justifies Montevecchi’s classification of this contract in her category of “contratti di

P.Oxy. IV 716 (A.D. 186; cf. P.Oxy. IV 722, A.D. 91/107), which records the auction of such a slave. Ludwig Mitteis, “Über die Freilassung durch den Teileigentümer eines Sklaven,” APF 3 (1906): 252–56. 323 I.e., Petosiris, son of Iranoupis, and Petermouthis, son of Ephonychos, both from the (collegia?) of boiled lentils at Memphis, acknowledge to have formed with each other a partnership and (business) association. 324 Paul M. Meyer, “Juristischer Papyrusbericht V,” ZRG 48 (1928): 615. 325 E.g., P.Enteux. 53 (218 B.C.); BGU IV 1123 (30–14 B.C.); P.Mich. V 348 (A.D. 26). Cf. LSJ, s.v. µετοχή 4.; Wilcken, Ostraka, 542–47; Taubenschlag, “societas,” 75–77; Steinwenter, “Gesellschaftsrechte,” in Studi Riccobono (ed. Riccobono), 488–89. Incidentally, the seemingly redundant collocation of κοινωνία and µετοχή indicates that the two terms (and their respective cognates) could sometimes be used as practical synonyms. See Hesychius, s.v. µετοχή (= κοινωνία); Wilcken, Ostraka, 541; idem, W.Chr., p. 183; San Nicolò, Vereinswesen 1:150; Llewelyn, NewDocs 9, 47, #18; Rupprecht, Einführung, 129–30; Muraoka, Lexicon, s.v. κοινωνία. 326 Johnson, Roman Egypt, 384–85, #234. 327 I.e., and after these things (have been paid; i.e., taxes, rent expenses, etc.), the net surplus shall be (divided) into two equal and similar portions. Cf. Taubenschlag, “societas,” 68.

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

207

società.”328 From the perspective of Roman law, it would have certainly been considered as a societas negotiationis, as Taubenschlag also noted.329 This rare use of κοινωνία can be observed in four more documents, which suggests that P.Bour. 13 should not be viewed as exceptional. The first instance, P.Flor. III 370 (A.D. 132), consists of a contract for the subletting of public land between T. Flavius Sarapion and P. Aelius Apollonios, two Roman citizens or freedmen (judging by their trinomina). Following the standard chirographic format, Flavius initially acknowledges Aelius as his partner: [Ὁ]µολογῶ ἔσασθαί σοι κοινωνὸς κατὰ τὸ ἥµισυ µέρος γεωργίας (ll. 2–3).330 The details of the agreement (ὁµολογία) and the delineations of the property to be leased (ll. 5–17) then follow: Flavius consents to bear half of all the expenses, taxes, and running costs of the exploitation. The contract finally concludes with the following unusual clause to reinforce the legal efficacy of the partnership: ἡ κοινωνία κυρία (l. 18). A comparable example is found in the fragmentary document P.Princ. II 36 (A.D. 195–197), which appears to be a partnership contract for the collection of some taxes (cf. λ̣ [ο]γ̣ε ̣ύµατα̣ , l. 1), and which, the ed. pr. surmised, probably closed in a similar way: ἡ κοινωνία [κυρία ἔστω] (ll. 7–8). This use of κοινωνία is particularly striking for it is rather uncommon. It is certainly much more frequent to find ἡ ὁµολογία/ µίσθωσις κυρία written instead.331 Of greater interest and importance for this study, however, is the fact that these documents provide a suggestive illustration of the economic and legal connotations the cognate could sometimes convey. Once again, it is safe to conclude that, from the perspective of Roman law, these contracts would have been considered as a type of societas, most likely a societas negotiationis. Another noteworthy, though late, example is found in P.Lond. V 1795 (A.D. VI). Due to the lacunose state of the papyrus, it is difficult to determine the object of this homologia, though it certainly involved sums of money (χρυσο\ῦ/ νοµισµάτια δύο, l. 11; χρυ̣ σ̣ο̣ῦ νοµίσ̣ µατα τρ[ί]α, l. 19). What is particularly interesting is the manner in which the contractors describe their agreement: Α[ὐρ(ήλιος)] ̣ ̣ ̣α̣ ς Βίκτωρος καὶ Πέτρος Κούνθω οἱ προ\κ/(είµενοι) ἐθέµεθα τ[ὴν] ὁ̣µ̣ [ολο]γ̣ίαν τ̣ ῆς κοινωνείας (ll.13–14).332 Given the immediate context and the other usages of κοινωνία in papyri 328

Montevecchi, La papirologia, 225. Taubenschlag, “societas,” 65–66. 330 I.e., I agree to be your partner to the extent of a half share of (arable) land. 331 E.g., P.Fouad I 33; P.Sakaon 71; P.Lond. III 1168. Cf. Hennig, Bodenpacht, 85– 329

86.

332

I.e., we, the aforementioned Aurelius … as (?) Victor and Petros Kounthos (Quintus?), made this partnership agreement.

208

Part One: Philological Survey

reviewed in this section, it should probably be understood as referring to a partnership of some sort, as the original editor also deduced.333 One last document that merits a brief mention is an unpublished papyrus (P.CtYBR inv. 616; A.D. 99) from the Yale Beinecke collection, which appears to make reference to a κοινωνία in some undetermined enterprise.334 Although our examination of a photograph of the document did not enable us to determine exactly the nature and possible terms of this κοινωνία, the accusative τὴν κοινωνίαν can be read easily on line 5, after what seems to be the verb τίθηµι (spelt τεθιµε), below the name Βησᾶς ∆ιόφαντου (l. 4).335 The following line is less clear and may contain the term κεφάλαιον (i.e., capital sum), while the second part of line 7, which is truncated at the beginning, is even less legible. The remaining twelve lines, which are written in another hand, are better preserved, but we were unable to decipher the text more precisely. One can safely assume, however, that they must have contained the details of the agreement, as well as, possibly, the names of the other signatories with whom Βησᾶς had formed (τίθηµι) his κοινωνία. We may conclude this overview of κοινωνία by observing that the cognate is employed much more frequently in papyri than in literary and epigraphic sources to convey the sense of (economic) partnership. Even cases of joint-lease or joint-ownership (ἐπὶ/κατὰ/ἀπὸ κοινωνίαν/ᾷ/ας) often involved, in practical terms, a partnership of some sort. Our investigation thus indirectly confirms the findings of Taubenschlag who, after surveying a more limited corpus of evidence, had concluded: “Die häufigste, man könnte sogar sagen ausschließliche Gesellschaftsform der Papyri ist die societas negotiationis,” e.g., “eine Staats- oder Privatpacht, ein Handelsunternehmen oder ein Gewerbe.”336 Taubenschlag’s remark somewhat confirms our own observations concerning the last five documents and further draws to our attention the possible conceptual similarities between κοινωνία and societas, a crucial point to which we shall return in the summary of this chapter and in our final eighth chapter. Before concluding, how333

See Bell, P.Lond. V 1795, pp. 251–52. Montevecchi also puts it in the category of “contratti di società per lavori o imprese commerciali.” Montevecchi, La papirologia, 225. Cf. Taubenschlag, “societas,” 52 (1932): 75; Steinwenter, “Gesellschaftsrechte,” in Studi Riccobono (ed. Riccobono), 503 (n. 69); Jakab, “Berenike,” 76. 334 It is described on the papyri.info online platform as a partnership contract between three men concerning some enterprise, for the purpose of which each provides some initial capital. No transcript is provided at this stage, but a photograph of reasonable quality is included. It remains unclear to us whether the right hand side of the papyrus has been damaged, as the 1–1.5 cm margin found on the left is not reproduced on the right. Accessed July 2013. Online: http://papyri.info/apis/yale.apis.0006160000. 335 The first three lines are in a different cursive hand, which we were not able to decipher. 336 Taubenschlag, “societas,” 64.

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

209

ever, we shall examine additional, and often overlooked, literary examples that will illustrate that the rather unusual use of κοινωνία noted in the last few papyri may not have been as uncommon as it may first appear.

5.4 Additional Examples of Κοινωνία as Partnership in Literary Sources We have concluded our previous section by examining five occurences of κοινωνία in papyri that rather stand out of the ordinary. Such use of the cognate is in fact not as peculiar as one might initially think and is also attested in some popular literary sources, albeit somewhat rarely. P. J. T. Endenburg certainly did not record many such instances of the term in classical sources, but he overlooked some suggestive examples found in Aesopic material (which neither Campbell, nor Seesemann, nor Baumert, seem to have consulted either). Endenburg’s omission is probably due to the fact that Aesop’s fables lay outside of his scope, since the oldest and most comprehensive anthology, the collectio Augustana, dates from ca. A.D. II–III. 337 There is much value in considering this type of literature, however, as it offers valuable insight into ancient popular language and culture. For these tales represented “a familiar way of speaking in classical Greece” and formed “a body of popular knowledge,” whose moralistic precepts could easily appeal to rusticus and imperitus people (Quintilian, Inst. 5.11.19).338 In our case, they provide us with additional philological evi-

337 Aesopica is notoriously difficult to navigate due to the number of recensions of its fables. It consists of anonymous collections, themselves divided into several recensions (Ia, II, and III, which are later than I and therefore, to a few exceptions, mainly dependent on I), as well as more limited Greek and Latin collections by Phaedrus, Babrius, Aphthonius, Avianus, and Syntipas, amongst others. Though somewhat late, these tales, along with Aesop’s biography, are generally considered to date originally from the VI B.C., and began to be collected, most likely, around III B.C. by Demetrius of Phalerum (cf. Diogenes Laertius 5.5.80). See Ben E. Perry, Aesopica: A Series of Texts relating to Aesop or ascribed to him or closely connected with the Literary Tradition that bears his Name (vol. 1; Urbana: University of Illinois, 1952), xii; idem, “Demetrius of Phalerum and the Aesopic Fables,” TAPhA 93 (1962): 287. Cf. Laura Gibbs, ed., Aesop’s Fables (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), xx–xxvi. For more general information on Aesopica see J. S. Rusten, “Aesop,” OCD3, p. 29; Maria J. Luzzatto, “Aesop,” BNP. Accessed February 2012. Online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-newpauly/aesop-e110970. 338 Gibbs, Aesop, xi. Cf. G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World from the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981), 444. Note: it is only in the modern era that children became the primary target audience of such fables.

210

Part One: Philological Survey

dence that proves to be particularly relevant to our investigation and confirms some of the documentary examples previously adduced. Fabula 154,339 for instance, relates how a lion, a donkey, and a fox decide to join forces to go hunting: λέων καὶ ὄνος καὶ ἀλώπηξ κοινωνίαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σπεισάµενοι ἐξῆλθον εἰς ἄγραν.340 The agreement between the protagonists is here formalised by a pouring of libations (σπεισάµενοι),341 as was common in the conclusion of diplomatic treaties, political alliances, or even business transactions (e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 3.144; Thucydides, Hist. 4.99; Xenophon, Anab. 1.9.7; Cicero, Att. 15.29).342 The hunt being over, the lion orders the donkey to distribute the game, which he immediately divides into three portions (τρεῖς µοίρας). Whereupon the lion seizes on the donkey and devours him. Taking his cue from the fate of the donkey, the fox then reserves for himself only a little of the spoil when later instructed by the lion to split it in half. The fable concludes with an epimythium driving the point that the wise person learns from the misfortune of others: ὁ λόγος δηλοῖ, ὅτι σωφρονισµὸς γίνεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ τῶν πέλας δυστυχήµατα. Witty as they were, fables such as this one had more pragmatic, didactic aims and sought to dispense wise counsel about situations that the audience would have been likely to encounter. In this case, for the tale to have been meaningful to the audience, it would have required that its listeners had a reasonably good understanding of what a κοινωνία consisted of and how it functioned in practical terms. This fable relied on the popular knowledge that κοινωνία was some kind of partnership between two or more individuals, who solemnly (cf. σπένδω) consented to collaborate towards a common objective (εἰς ἄγραν). It also assumed the general awareness that, once its purpose had been accomplished, partners would then proceed to divide the fruit of their labour. What is particularly striking in this tale are, broadly speaking, the similarities between the modus operandi of the κοινωνία herein described and that of Roman societas, which we will expound in greater detail in our last chapter. Yet, this fable also exemplifies how greed and malevolence could generate conflicts at the

339 We follow the text and classification of Hausrath and Hunger, as found in the TLG. A. Hausrath and H. Hunger, Corpus fabularum Aesopicarum (vol. 1; Leipzig: Teubner, 1970), 180–88. Cf. Perry, Aesopica 1: 378–79, #149. 340 A similar κοινωνία (ἐπὶ θήραν) is mentioned in Fab. 156: λέων καὶ ὄνος κοινωνίαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σπεισάµενοι ἐξῆλθον ἐπὶ θήραν. Cf. Perry, Aesopica 1, 379–80, #151. 341 Perry prefers the variant στειλάµενοι. Perry, Aesopica 1: 378–79, #149. 342 Cf. LSJ, s.v. σπένδω. For an insightful study of oaths in commercial agreements, see especially chapter 3, “Gods, Oaths, and Contracts – The Use of Oaths in Commerce,” in Nicholas K. Rauh, The Sacred Bonds of Commerce: Religion, Economy, and Trade Society at Hellenistic Roman Delos (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1993), 129–50.

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

211

time of apportioning benefits, an issue which is raised in another tale in equally evocative fashion. Fabula 203 indeed offers a pithy illustration of the inherent dangers of forming partnerships and warns against the risks of dealing treacherously against one’s partner. This time only a donkey and a fox agree to go hunting together: ὄνος καὶ ἀλώπηξ κοινωνίαν συνθέµενοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐξῆλθον ἐπὶ/εἰς ἄγραν.343 On their way they encounter a lion, to whom the fox promises to deliver his companion in exchange for his own safety. The lion gladly consents, lets the fox ensnare the donkey, and then sets upon the fox, saving the donkey for later. The story concludes with a word of caution on behaving deceitfully towards one’s associate: οὕτως οἱ τοῖς κοινωνοῖς ἐπιβουλεύοντες λανθάνουσι πολλάκις καὶ ἑαυτοὺς συναπολλύντες.344 One can easily imagine that the moral of the story would have struck a chord with ancient business people. Defrauding a partner was certainly never without consequences and could bring one’s downfall. In Roman times, it opened the way for an actio pro socio, which resulted in the condemnatio (with infamia) of the convicted.345 One last fable that is worthy of some consideration is fabula 181 (I), which relates a trading partnership between a bat (νυκτερίς), a bramble bush (βάτος), and a shearwater (αἴθυια): νυκτερὶς καὶ βάτος καὶ αἴθυια κοινωνίαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους στειλάµενοι ἐµπορεύεσθαι διέγνωσαν.346 The bat borrowed some money, while the bramble bush and the shearwater loaded some clothing material and copper onto a ship. As they set out, a storm arose and destroyed both the ship and its entire cargo. Since then, the bat has ventured outside only at night for fear of her creditors, the shearwater has flown restlessly over the sea in search for her copper, while the bramble bush has grabbed hold of sailors’ garments in hope of recovering his lost merchandise. The fable concludes with a warning to listeners to be especially careful of such calamities, lest disaster befalls them as well: ὁ λόγος δηλοῖ, ὅτι περὶ ταῦτα µᾶλλον σπουδάζοµεν, περὶ ἃ ἂν πρότερον πταίσωµεν. As with the other tales, it is not too difficult to imagine that the story would have resonated with sailors and merchants, who, judging by the number of shipwrecks at the bottom of the Mediterranean sea, must 343

Recensions I and III differ slightly. Cf. Perry, Aesopica 1, 396, #191. I.e., likewise, those who plot against their associates often forget that they will also destroy themselves. 345 Cf. Buckland, Text-Book, 512; Zimmermann, Obligations, 460–61. 346 Recension II reads: νυκτερὶς καὶ βάτος καὶ αἴθυια πρὸς ἀλλήλους κοινωνίαν ποιήσαντες ἐµπορεύεσθαι διέγνωσαν. Chambry also records two other versions where κοινωνίαν (στειλάµενοι/ποιήσαντες) is replaced by φιλίαν (ποιήσασαι) and κοινωνοὶ ἐγένοντο. See Perry, Aesopica 1, 387–88, #171; Émile Chambry, ed., Aesopi fabulae (vol. 2; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1926), 411–412, #251 aliter. The tale is also found in Syntipas’ eleventh-century collection (Fab. 36). 344

212

Part One: Philological Survey

have been all too familiar with the dangers of maritime trade.347 More importantly, the story highlights once more the possible economic connotation of κοινωνία. In context, it clearly alludes to a maritime commercial partnership, such as those that were common in Classical and Roman times, as one final passage in Plutarch will illustrate.348 The excerpt in question, which is well known to ancient and legal historians who have often debated its significance from an economic and legal point of view, describes the commercial enterprises of Cato the elder. One of his most disreputable schemes, Plutarch asserts, was to lend money to merchants or shipowners whom he required to organise themselves ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ: ἐκέλευε τοὺς δανειζοµένους ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ πολλοὺς παρακαλεῖν (Cat. Maj. 21.6). Once fifty partners and as many ships were assembled, Cato would then take a share (µερίς) in what appears to have been a company through his freedman Quintio, who would accompany the expedition: αὐτὸς εἶχε µίαν µερίδα διὰ Κουϊντίωνος ἀπελευθέρου, τοῖς δανειζοµένοις συµπραγµατευοµένου καὶ συµπλέοντος (Cat. Maj. 21.6). This procedure seems to have enabled him to minimize risks (by distributing possible losses evenly amongst the partners), and thus to optimize his return on investment: ἦν οὖν οὐκ εἰς ἅπαν ὁ κίνδυνος, ἀλλ’ εἰς µέρος µικρὸν ἐπὶ κέρδεσι µεγάλοις (Cat. Maj. 21.6). The legal intricacies of the arrangement herein described have long puzzled and divided historians. Some have considered it to consist of a traditional maritime loan (nauticum faenus), while others have preferred to view it as some kind of societas, or even a combination of both.349 E. Szlechter, for instance, judged that the episode preserved one of the earliest attestations of a societas alicuius negotiationis. He surmised that Cato 347

Cf. A. J. Parker, Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces (Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, 1992). A complete database of Roman shipwrecks has been developed by members of The Oxford Roman Economy Project. See J. Strauss, “Shipwrecks Database, Version 1.0 (2013),” n.p. [cited 5 May 2013]. Online:oxrep.classics.ox.ac.uk/databases/shipwrecks_database/. 348 On ancient maritime partnerships, see Endenburg, Koinoonia, 167–70; Jean Rougé, Recherches sur l’organisation du commerce maritime en Méditerranée sous l’empire romain (Paris: S.E.V.P.E.N., 1966), 423–34; Dominic Rathbone, “The Financing of Maritime Commerce in the Roman Empire, I–II AD,” in Credito e moneta nel mondo romano: Atti degli incontri capresi di storia dell’economia antica (Capri 12–14 ottobre 2000) (ed. E. Lo Cascio; Bari: Edipuglia, 2003), 210–25. 349 Ménager has even suggested that it could describe a locatio, though this is very unlikely. L. R. Ménager, “‘Naulum’ et ‘receptum rem salvam fore’: Contribution à l’étude de la responsabilité contractuelle dans les transports maritimes en droit romain,” RD 38 (1970): 182–83, 400. Cf. Jean Andreau, “Roman Law in relation to Banking and Business: A Few Cases,” in Ancient Economies, Modern Methodologies: Archaeology, Comparative History, Models and Institutions (eds. P. F. Bang, M. Ikeguchi, and H. G. Ziche; Bari: Edipuglia, 2006), 204–205.

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

213

had improved on the well-known Greek and Babylonian maritime loan (or prêt à la grosse) and société en commandite350 by forcing his borrowers to form a societas, in which he himself would take a fiftieth share (µερίς) through his freedman.351 For Szlechter, “[j]uridiquement, on avait affaire là à une société de caractère réel, où chacun devait faire l’apport en capital pour que la société pût être formée.”352 U. von Lübtow, on the other hand, argued that Cato had devised an innovative “Kombination von Seedarlehen und Seefernhandelsgesellschaft,” whereby he aimed at reaping “ein mehr oder weniger hoher Gewinnanteil” (µερίς).353 In a similar vein, D. Rathbone would later suggest that “Cato encouraged the formation of a business association (societas) of fifty shipowners,” to whom he lent the necessary capital to carry out the expedition.354 He suspected that Cato’s objective was thereby to act as “a thirdparty lender rather than [as] a member of the societas,” so as “to steer clear of other liabilities arising from the partners’ activities.”355 Yet, he made sure to have his freedman as one of the socii in order to “know of the internal dealings of the societas and guard against fraud.”356 J. Rougé has opposed these alternative explanations, however, contending instead that, even though κοινωνία does have the sense of societas here, Cato in fact did not form any such partnership or company (from a legal point of view).357 Rather, as an “homme prudent et avisé,” he simply aimed at dividing the invested sum between the fifty ships and required them to form a classis and sail in a convoy (ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ) in order to reduce risks. If a ship ran into trouble, others could have provided assistance and res350

I.e., a partnership whereby one or several of the partners provide the capital, while the other(s) manage(s) the business and subsequently reimburse the initial capital from the proceeds of the partnership. Cf. Szlechter, Le contrat, 25–42, 52–53, 116; Cabrillac, Dictionnaire juridique, 376. 351 Szlechter, Le contrat, 268–70. 352 Szlechter, Le contrat, 270. 353 Ulrich von Lübtow, “Catos Seedarlehen,” in Festschrift für Erwin Seidl zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. H. Hübner, E. Klingmüller, and A. Wacke; Cologne: Hanstein, 1975), 106–107. 354 Rathbone, “Maritime Commerce,” 214. 355 Rathbone, “Maritime Commerce,” 214. 356 Rathbone, “Maritime Commerce,” 214. See also Broekaert who has more recently proposed that “Quintio acted as the 51st socius and single ‘passive’ partner and agent for his patron.” Broekaert, “Joining Forces,” 225. 357 Rougé’s position is somewhat perplexing as he acknowledges that: “le récit nous ferait penser à la constitution d’une societas, et d’ailleurs tel est bien le sens de koinônia.” Yet, he does not draw the logical conclusion of his own suggestion and, two sentences later, proposes that the phrase ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ signifies “naviguer en convoi.” Jean Rougé, “Prêt et société maritimes dans le monde romain,” MAAR 36 (1980): 293. Cf. idem, Recherches, 357–59, 426–28.

214

Part One: Philological Survey

cued the cargo.358 Meanwhile, Quintio, who was not Cato’s associate in the trade but merely served as “le représentant du prêteur,” would have kept watch on the proper running of the operations and seen to the honouring of the contract.359 Rougé concluded that this procedure, as related by Plutarch at least, neither differed from the familiar characteristics of nauticum faenus nor adopted the features of a societas. For, as he pointed out, the contract did not imply “un partage de bénéfices et des pertes au prorata des apports,” but simply “le remboursement à Caton des avances consenties, augmentées des intérêts maritimes, indépendamment des bénéfices réalisés par les emprunteurs.”360 Rougé’s reasoning is quite persuasive. However, it does not really provide an explanation for the significance of the µερίς Cato acquired through his freedman.361 Furthermore, it overlooks the fact that assembling such a large fleet would not have been without risk, risks which a prudent investor might not have been willing to take. Should the expedition be caught in a storm, for instance, it could have been almost entirely wiped out (cf. Petronius, Satyr. 76).362 Might it not have been safer to divide it into two or three different groups of fifteen to twenty vessels? In any case, according to Plutarch, Cato was not demanding that ships sail ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ, but that borrowers be organised ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ, which is a significant nuance (that is, Plutarch did not write ἐκέλευε τὰ πλοῖα συµπλέοντα ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ πολλά παρακαλεῖν or ἐκέλευε τὰ πλοῖα ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ πολλά συµπλεῖν, but ἐκέλευε τοὺς δανειζοµένους ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ πολλοὺς παρακαλεῖν). The phrase ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ therefore need not be understood as referring to the formation of a convoy. Rather, it is best to view it as indicative of the partnership binding the various borrowers to one another. These remarks aside, it cannot be denied that Cato did lend money (at an interest), as the verb δανείζω clearly implies, which is precisely what 358

Rougé, “Prêt,” 293. Cf. idem, Recherches, 427. Rougé, Recherches, 427. 360 Rougé, “Prêt,” 293. 361 His tentative resolution of this issue remains obscure to us. Cf. Rougé, Recherches, 428 (n. 1): “Mais cette seconde phrase est assez embrouillée: on devrait comprendre que si Quintius participe à l’opération commerciale il a à sa disposition, comme les autres membres de la κοινωνία, un navire de commerce; or, tel n’est pas le cas. C’est pourquoi, à supposer que Plutarque n’ait pas exactement rapporté les activités économiques de Caton, c’est sur ce dernier point que porteront nos doutes et non sur l’existence du prêt maritime. Il est en effet fort possible que Plutarque, au courant de l’existence des sociétés de commerce maritime de son temps, ait été abusé par l’obligation faite par Caton à ses emprunteurs de naviguer en convoi, comme naviguaient à son époque les navires chargés du transport de l’annone vers les ports du Tibre et de Rome.” 362 This is precisely what happened to the Romans in the first Punic war, in which they lost all but 80 of their 364 ships (cf. Polybius, Hist. 1.37). 359

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

215

Plutarch found to be contemptible.363 The best interpretation would thus seem to be one that acknowledges both aspects of Cato’s scheme, which, as J. Andreau has rightly observed is quite “exceptional from the legal point of view,” since it appears to have “brought together two different contracts.”364 However complex and unusual this arrangement may have been, the most plausible explanation is that it “consisted of both a maritime loan and a limited partnership.”365 This consequently, provides additional evidence that κοινωνία could correspond to societas, as several others have also concluded in this case.366 In fact, the Byzantine lex Rhodia (ca. A.D. VII), in which similar maritime commercial partnerships (i.e., societates) are repeatedly designated in Greek as κοινωνίαι (lex Rhodia 3.9, 17, 21, 27, 32), as well as ninth-century Byzantine law and scholia which also frequently use the term in lieu of societas,367 suggest that this remained a common economic and legal connotation of the term for many centuries.368

5.5 Summary We may now bring this chapter to a close. Breaking away from a theologically-focused approach which has mainly concentrated on philosophical and Christian literary sources, we have endeavoured to examine the significance and usage of κοινων- cognates in documentary sources, which 363

It is unclear to us why Broekaert considers the verb to mean simply “to ‘put something to someone’s disposal, free of charge’.” If that were the case, why would have Plutarch then described his δανεισµός activities as especially contemptible (τῷ διαβεβληµένῳ µάλιστα)? See Broekaert, “Joining Forces,” 225 (n. 15). 364 Andreau, “Roman Law,” 204. For Andreau, contra von Lübtow, Cato’s operation would remain unprecedented and did not set a new standard for maritime trade. 365 Andreau, “Roman Law,” 205. 366 Cf. Rauh, Sacred Bonds, 257–59; Verboven, Economy, 285; Minaud, La comptabilité, 332–33; Boudewijn Sirks, “Supplying Rome: Safeguarding the System,” in Supplying Rome and the Empire: The Proceedings of an International Seminar held at SienaCertosa di Pontignano on May 2–4, 2004, on Rome, the Provinces, Production and Distribution (ed. E. Papi; Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2007), 176; Broekaert, “Joining Forces,” 225. 367 See for instance Stephanus, Schol. ad. Bas. 12.1.50.26 (= Dig. 17.2.52.6), which makes reference to ἡ ercto non cito κοινωνία. D. Holwerda and H. J. Scheltema, eds., Basilicorum Libri LX (Series B; 9 vols; Groningen: Wolters, 1953–1985). For the corrected reading, see Fritz Pringsheim, “Stephanos zu D. 17, 2, 52, 6,” ZRG 45 (1925): 491–92. Cf. Mariagrazia Bianchini, Studi sulla societas (Milan: Giuffrè, 1967), 47. 368 Translations and commentaries on these regulations can be found in Walter Ashburner, ed., The Rhodian Sea-Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1909), 87–108. A helpful discussion of the kind of partnerships therein envisaged can also be consulted on pp. ccxxxiv–v, ccxl–liv.

216

Part One: Philological Survey

have again provided greater insight in the lingua franca of the day than literary sources. We have discovered that, in a majority of cases, these cognates essentially expressed the idea of partnership, be it economic, political, marital, or otherwise, and not that of religious association and/or spiritual communion, as the expression would later come to signify in Christian theology and liturgy. Our survey has also addressed some of the criticisms levelled against Sampley by providing the hard evidence that illustrates that, to paraphrase Peterman somewhat, κοινωνία could be used by Greek speakers to denote Roman societas.369 In fact, the translator(s) of the Vulgate themselves render κοινωνία by societas most of the time (though it is unlikely that they had the Roman obligatio in mind).370 Granted, we have yet to discover a bilingual document from the Classical, Hellenistic, or Roman eras, in which societas is actually translated as κοινωνία, or vice versa – bilingual documents are extremely rare in any case. The closest example of a direct correspondence that is known to us is found in Justinian’s Institutes 3.25 (A.D. VI), in which societas (omnium bonorum) is said to be called by the Greeks κοινοπραξία, a word which is unattested in the TLG prior to A.D. VII. 371 Nevertheless, based on the philological evidence herein adduced, there should be no more doubt that, pragmatically speaking, the terms κοινωνία and societas could have the same basic sense of partnership or alliance, principally political and/or economic partnership, as has in fact

369

Cf. Peterman, Gift, 125–26. E.g., 1 Cor 1:9; 2 Cor 6:14; Gal 2:9; Phil 2:1, 3:10; 1 John 1:3, 6–7. The translator(s) also used communicatio or participatio (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 10:16; 2 Cor 8:4, 9:13, 13:13; Phil 1:5; Phlm 6), but only once communio (Heb 13:16). The variant societas is found for Phil 1:5 in Vetus Latina texts, though communicatio is the predominant reading. In the bilingual Codex Claromontanus (A.D. VI), communicatio mostly renders κοινωνία (Phil 1:5, 2:1, 3:10; 2 Cor 8:4, 9:13, 13:13; Phlm 6), though societas is also employed (1 Cor 1:9; Gal 2:9). Codex Augiensis (A.D. IX) also has societas for 1 Cor 1:9, 2 Cor 6:14, Gal 2:9, and Phil 2:1, 3:10. See Frede, Philippenses, 54; Tischendorf, Codex Claromontanus; F. H. A. Scrivener, ed., An Exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis (London: Bell and Daldy, 1859). Cf. Baumert, Koinonein, 375–78. 371 The word is found neither in the DDbDP and PHI databases nor in standard lexica. One should probably understand the word κοινοπραγία here (i.e., common enterprise), which is more common in literary sources, especially in Polybius (e.g., Hist. 9.37.4; 31.1.8) and Diodorus Siculus (e.g., 11.1.4; 15.8.4), though very rare in documentary sources (the only example we could find is SEG 23.547; Crete, III B.C.). Harris instead takes κοινοπραγία to be synonymous with κοινωνία here. See Edward M. Harris, Democracy and the Rule of Law in Classical Athens: Essays on Law, Society, and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 150. Cf. LSJ, s.v. κοινοπραγία; Fleury, “société,” 45. 370

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

217

long been recognised by a number of prominent, yet overlooked, philologists, papyrologists, and legal historians.372 Furthermore, it should have now become more evident that the claim that “the true equivalent for κοινων- is communis/communitas and the like” is as restrictive and unjustified as the claim that the true equivalent of κοινων- cognates is societas and the like.373 The sense community (communitas) is actually rarely found in documentary sources (except perhaps in reference to marital union), although it is true that the idea of common ownership, i.e., communio pro diviso/indiviso or societas omnium bonorum, is often indicated in papyri by the prepositional construction ἐπὶ/ κατὰ/ ἀπὸ κοινωνίαν/ς. The lack of a clear differentiation between societas (omnium bonorum) and communio might be due to the origins of societas itself, which is now thought to have stemmed from an archaic type of partnership (ercto non cito) amongst sui heredes (i.e., immediate heirs of the same pater familias), who owned undividedly (indiviso) inherited assets in common (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.154a–b).374 Over time, this partnership, which 372

See Mommsen, “Thisbaeis,” 297; Ziebarth, Vereinswesen, 13–14; Poland, Vereinswesens, 164; Preisigke, WB 1:815–16; Taubenschlag, “societas”; Steinwenter, “Gesellschaftsrechte,” in Studi Riccobono (ed. Riccobono), 488–89; Arangio-Ruiz, FIRA2 3.149, pp. 462–64; idem, “‘Societas re contracta’ e ‘communio incidens’,” in Studi in onore di Salvatore Riccobono nel XL anno del suo insegnamento (vol. 4; ed. S. Riccobono; Palermo: G. Castiglia, 1936), 382–83; Szlechter, Le contrat, 268–70; Andreau, “Roman Law,” 204–205; Harris, Democracy, 150. The following scholars recognise the sense partnership/partner for κοινωνία/κοινωνός at least: Hesychius, s.v. µετοχή (= κοινωνία; cf. idem, s.v. συµβόλαια: κοινωνία χρηµάτων); Wilcken, W.Chr., p. 183; San Nicolò, Vereinswesen 1:150; Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 357; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 15– 16, 20–21; Endenburg, Koinoonia; Rupprecht, Einführung, 129–30; Arnaldo Biscardi, Diritto greco antico (Milan: Giuffrè, 1982), 157. See also Baumert, Koinonein, 258. 373 Horsley, NewDocs 3, 19, #4. Cf. Popkes, “Gemeinschaft,” RAC 9:1119, but see p. 1134: “Die Variabilität wird auch im lateinischen Vokabular sichtbar. Im allgemein ist communio Äquivalent zu κοινωνία … , doch finden sich oft auch communicatio u. societas ebenso wie communicator u. particeps neben socius für κοινωνός” (emphasis added). For Seesemann, the usual Latin translation of κοινωνία is communicatio or communio. However, Dewailly has shown that establishing a direct connection between the two is not without difficulties. Ernout and Meillet have instead κοινότης as equivalent to communitas. See Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ, 42; Dewailly, “Communio,” 48–49; A. Ernout and A. Meillet, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: Histoire des mots (4th rev. ed.; Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1959), s.v. communis, 421. 374 The origins and early development of societas is a complex matter. See Francis de Zulueta, The Institutes of Gaius (Part 2: Commentary; Oxford: Clarendon, 1953), 174– 78; Alan Watson, “Consensual Societas between Romans and the Introduction of Formulae,” RIDA 9 (1962): 431–34; Buckland, Text-Book, 404, 507; Zimmermann, Obligations, 451–52, 454; Ernest Metzger, ed., A Companion to Justinian’s Institutes (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998), 162–63; David Daube, “Societas as Consensual Contract,” The Cambridge Law Journal 6.3 (1938): 381–82. Del Chiaro would contest this reconstruc-

218

Part One: Philological Survey

in effect constituted a sort of consortium (i.e., undivided ownership amongst heirs), evolved into a consensual societas omnium bonorum between socii (who did not need to be brothers), that is, a partnership whereby all the partner’s assets were held in common (i.e., in communio), which proved to be particularly suited to agriculture.375 From a practical, economic point of view, the distinction between communio and societas omnium bonorum appears to have been very fine. The word socius could actually designate either a partner in a societas or a joint-owner.376 Indeed, as M. Kaser has remarked, “die beiden Begriffe [societas and communio] terminologisch nicht scharf abgegrenzt einander gegenüberstehen.”377 From a strictly legal perspective, however, the difference between the two would have depended on the mutual intention, the affectio societatis, to form a societas and to work towards a common objective, e.g., the joint-cultivation of a parcel of land (cf. Dig. 17.2.31).378 Whilst the legal nuance might have been clear enough to jurists, it is not certain that it would have been obvious to uneducated subsistence farmers, who were more concerned with the yield of their crop than with punctilious matters of the law. In practice, such communio, whether amongst heirs or not, would have in any case resulted in a working partnership, as J. Rowlandson has rightly observed.379 Perhaps, then, rather than expecting a strict lexical equivalence between all these terms, we ought to envisage a more dynamic and fluid semantic equivalence, whereby, depending on the context, κοινωνία could refer either to societas (in the broad sense of partnership), communio (in the broad sense of shared possession), or communitas (in the broad sense of community).380 Holding onto a narrow definition of these polysemic and polyvalent terms may in fact be problematic. The term societas itself need not be solely understood, as Sampley seems to have implied,381 in a juristic and commercial sense, for it could also refer, more generally, to societal tion but he had no knowledge of PSI XI 1182, which has now been included in Gaius, Inst. 3.154a. Cf. Del Chiaro, Le contrat, 14–18 (n. 1). 375 Cf. Zulueta, Institutes, 174–78; Buckland, Text-Book, 513–14; Metzger, Companion, 162–63; Daube, “Societas,” 381–82; Zimmermann, Obligations, 452; Berger, EDRL, s.v. consortium, 409, s.v. societas omnium bonorum, 709. 376 In literary sources, the term socius actually identifies a co-owner more often than it indicates a partner in a societas. See del Chiaro, Le contrat, 22–25. Cf. ibid., 110. 377 Max Kaser, “Neue Literatur zur ‘Societas’,” Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris 41 (1975): 297. 378 Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, 149–55. 379 Rowlandson, Landowners, 144, 173. 380 For more precise definitions of these terms see OLD, s.v. societas, communitas, communis. Cf. San Nicolò, Vereinswesen 1:3–5, 151 (n. 1); Arangio-Ruiz, “Societas,” in Studi Riccobono (ed. Riccobono), 382–83; Popkes, “Gemeinschaft,” RAC 9:1119. 381 See Sampley, Partnership, 12, 60–61. But see ibid., 29.

Chapter 5: Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

219

concepts, e.g., society (e.g., Cicero, De or. 2.68), political alliance or league (e.g., Caesar, Bell. civ. 3.107), or even marital union (e.g., Dig. 25. 2.1).382 As Kaser has again rightly noted: Socius, societas werden in juristischen und nichtjuristischen Quellen für Freundschaft, Gefährtenschaft, Ehegemeinschaft, Amtskollegenschaft oder (deliktische und kriminelle) Mittäterschaft gebraucht, aber auch in der Rechtssprache für Gemeinschaften, die nicht auf Kontrakt beruhen, besonders für die Erbengemeinschaft.383

To sum up, we may safely conclude that a meticulous investigation of the documentary evidence gives support to Sampley’s initial intuition that κοινωνία could correspond to the legal and commercial Roman concept of societas. The fundamental question that remains to be answered, therefore, is whether κοινων- terms have a socio-economic and legal connotation akin to societas in Paul’s letter to the Philippians, or whether Paul invested them with a special theological meaning. We have expressed elsewhere our opinion for passages such as Romans 15:26–27, 2 Corinthians 8:4 and 9:13, or Galatians 2:9,384 and a priori, there seems to be no particular reason, apart from theological assumptions, to consider that κοινων- terms should have a more theological connotation in Philippians as well. This question need not be resolved at this stage, however, and we shall address it in greater detail in our seventh our eighth chapters. As we proceed with our exegesis, we shall seek to determine which connotation seems to make the best sense of the situation in Philippians and shall articulate more explicitly what we think Paul sought to communicate.

382 Cf. OLD, s.v. societas; A. Manigk, “Societas,” PW[2] 3.1: 772–81; del Chiaro, Le contrat, 22–23; Berger, EDRL, s.v., societas, 708; J. Hellegouarc’h, Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la République (2nd rev. ed.; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1972), 82–87. 383 Kaser, “Societas,” 297. As our study has illustrated, the same remark could be applied to κοινων- cognates. Cf. San Nicolò, Vereinswesen 1:3; Fleury, “société,” 45. 384 Cf. Ogereau, “Κοινωνία”.

Part Two

Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis As we have remarked in our general introduction, scholars have long recognised the presence of economic termini technici in Paul’s letter to the Philippians. The preceding philological survey has sought to go beyond this mere observation, however, and has illustrated in detail the various connotations these terms could have in documentary sources, which, we have argued, reflect particularly well the everyday language of Paul and his communities. In the second part of this study, we shall now attempt to apply these philological findings to Philippians in order to hear afresh the economic discourse Paul carefully elaborates in 4:15–20. How, and to what end, did he employ this technical terminology? How did his application of it differ from that observed in documentary sources, if it differed at all? In sum, what did he seek to communicate? And how could his audience have possibly understood and responded to it? Beyond these questions, we shall seek to grasp the implications of Paul’s discourse from a first-century Graeco-Roman perspective. For, ultimately, what we are primarily interested in is to uncover the socio-economic reality implied by Paul’s technical language, that is, to elucidate the socio-economic nature of his relationship with the Philippians and, by implication, to understand more accurately his strategy vis-à-vis the funding of his missionary activities. For this purpose, it is fundamental that, as we approach Philippians once more, we lay aside any preconceived opinion about Paul’s supposedly negative attitude towards material and/or financial support and about the possible meaning(s) of this text. Right from the onset, we must make the conscious effort to resist the view currently prevalent in scholarship that, in 4:15–20, Paul develops a sophisticated metaphor to express a certain sociological reality that is dissociated from any practical economic consideration. Indeed, the appeal to metaphorical language is immediately confronted with a major difficulty: Paul has actually received something, something concrete, tangible, that is, a gift, as most would consider it, in the form of a material and/or financial contribution. Whether Paul actually appears to be grateful or not as he acknowledges the gift is a question that need not concern us for now. What is more important to recognise at this stage is that Paul simply states that he has been fully provided for by Epa-

222

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

phroditus: ἀπέχω δὲ πάντα … πεπλήρωµαι δεξάµενος παρὰ Ἐπαφροδίτου τὰ παρ᾽ ὑµῶν (4:18). At first glance, it would seem that this practical show of support was a direct consequence of their earlier agreement to partner or to cooperate εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως (4:15). Whether Paul is herein evoking their mutual exchange of earthly commodities (δόσεις τῶν σαρκικῶν) for spiritual ones (λήψεις τῶν πνευµατικῶν),1 or whether he is alluding to their close relationship by means of an accounting metaphor or simile as Cicero or Seneca might (cf. Cicero, Amic. 16.58; Seneca, Lucil. 81.18),2 is not immediately obvious. Regardless of the prevalence of these understandings in the history of scholarship, they ought to be reconsidered in the light of the philological evidence adduced earlier. What we propose to do, therefore, is to make tabula rasa of all previous interpretations, some of which may have been tainted by unwarranted theological assumptions and a certain reluctance to apprehend Paul, if not as an homo oeconomicus, at least as someone in touch with the socio-economic conventions of his world, and to listen to this text again with ears better attuned to the economic resonance of his choice selection of termini technici. Before we turn to the passage in question and explore its socio-economic potential, however, we ought to turn our attention to two important preliminary issues: the questions of the literary unity and the genre of Philippians.

1 Cf. John Chrysostom, Hom. Phil. 1 (PG 62.184, ll. 4–6), 15 (PG 62.291, ll. 2–4). Cf. Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 80.4, l. 3; Pelagius, Expositions, 414–15. 2 See for instance Marshall’s influential interpretation. Marshall, Enmity, 157–64.

Chapter 6

Preliminary Questions 6.1 The Question of the Literary Unity of Philippians The issue of the literary unity of Philippians has been a bone of contention for over a century now. Partition hypotheses were first elaborated in the nineteenth century, although, initially, they were neither widely spread nor well accepted.1 For example, H. A. W. Meyer, T. Zahn, and J. Moffatt, were never persuaded.2 It was not until the 1960s that a scholarly consensus began to emerge, in German scholarship at least, especially due to the work of W. Schmithals, J. Müller-Bardorff, B. D. Rahtjen, H. Koester, and G. Bornkamm,3 even though some would remain unconvinced by these

1 See for instance Daniel Völter, “Zwei Briefe an die Philipper,” ThT 26 (1892): 10– 44, 117–46; Carl Clemen, Die Einheitlichkeit der Paulinischen Briefe (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1894), 133–41; Johannes Weiss, Das Urchristentum (ed. R. Knopf; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917), 296. Le Moyne was once thought to have been the first, in 1685, to recognise the difficulty of holding Philippians as a literary unit. However, Cook has shown this understanding to be mistaken. Koperski has instead attributed the earliest partition theory to J. H. Heinrichs in 1803, and has demonstrated that it was not widely received. Koperski’s conclusions seem to be confirmed by Rillet’s and Eadie’s allusion to the partition theories of Heinrichs (as well as those of Paulus and Schraeder). See David Cook, “Stephanus Le Moyne and the Dissection of Philippians,” JTS 31 (1981): 138–42; V. Koperski, “The Early History of the Dissection of Philippians,” JTS 44.2 (1993): 599–604; A. Rilliet, Commentaire sur l’épître de l’apôtre Paul aux Philippiens, accompagné de recherches sur l’église de Philippes et sur les dispositions qui favorisaient chez les populations païennes d’Europe l’accès de la prédication apostolique (Paris: Delay, 1841), 94; Eadie, Philippians, xxx–xxxi. 2 Meyer, Philippians, 7; Theodor Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (vol. 1; Leipzig: Deichert, 1900), 396; James Moffatt, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911), 172–76. 3 Three studies were published almost independently from each other at about the same time: Walter Schmithals, “The False Teachers of the Epistle to the Philippians,” in Paul and the Gnostics (trans. J. E. Steely; Nashville: Abingdon, 1972; repr. and rev. from ZTK 54 [1957]), 65–122; J. Müller-Bardorff, “Zur Frage der literarischen Einheit des Philipperbriefes,” WZJENA 7 (1957–1958): 591–604; B. D. Rahtjen, “The Three Letters of Paul to the Philippians,” NTS 6 (1960): 167–73. See also Helmut Koester, “The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment (Philippians III),” NTS 8 (1962): 317–32; G.

224

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

“allzu phantasievolle Hypothesen.”4 Needless to say, numerous responses have in turn been formulated (by predominantly Anglo-Saxon scholars) in defence of the literary integrity of the letter.5 We need not review in detail what now amounts to a rather voluminous secondary literature on the topic, nor do we wish to revive the whole debate. Rather, the following treatment merely purports to justify our position in favour of the literary unity. 6 We shall first of all summarize the main arguments leading to a partitioning of the letter. We shall then present some of the counterarguments which we have found to be most persuasive, and which provide, in our view, reasonable explanations for considering the letter as a single document. Ultimately, the issue bears little consequence on one’s understanding of the socio-economic nature of Paul’s relationship with the Philippians. However, it does affect one’s reconstruction of the chronological events explicitly or implicitly referred throughout the letter, and, therefore, influences one’s interpretation of them.7 Doubts regarding the unity of the letter were originally triggered by what many considered to be a break in the tone and flow of the letter at 3:1 (and then 4:4),8 a break which is not satisfactorily explained by an altered psychological state or a pause in dictation, as some have suggested, but which seems to imply “neue erschreckende Nachrichten aus der Ge-

Bornkamm, “Der Philipperbrief als paulinische Briefsammlung,” in Neotestamentica et Patristica (ed. O. Cullmann; NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962), 192–202. 4 Müller, Philipper, 13. Cf. Martin Dibelius, A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (Westport: Greenwood, 1979), 166. Barth also assumed the literary unity of the letter in his commentary and discussed the issue in an expeditious manner. See Karl Barth, Erklärungen des Philipperbriefes (Munich: Kaiser, 1928), 86 (n. 1). 5 For some of the earliest responses, see Gerard Ball, “The Epistle to the Philippians: A Reply,” Exp 8 th 8 (1914): 143–54; Maurice Jones, “The Integrity of the Epistle to the Philippians,” Exp 8 th 8 (1914): 457–73. Cf. T. E. Pollard, “The Integrity of Philippians,” NTS 13 (1966): 57–66. 6 Right from the onset, we ought to acknowledge that we approached the question having little doubt concerning the unity of the letter. We then tried to understand the various partition hypotheses and were in fact temporarily persuaded by some of the arguments propounded. Overall, however, it seems to us that the burden of evidence in favour of the unity of the letter outweighs that against it. 7 As Bormann rightly notes: “Eine Chronologie der Beziehungen zwischen Paulus und der Philippergemeinde ist wesentlich von der Entscheidung über die Einheitlichkeit des Philipperbriefes bestimmt.” Bormann, Philippi, 118. 8 See especially J. Hugh Michael, “The Philippian Interpolation – Where Does It End?” Exp 8 th 19 (1920): 49–63; Schmithals, “False Teachers,” 69–81; Paul V. Furnish, “The Place and Purpose of Philippians III,” NTS 10 (1963): 80–88. Cf. K. Lake, “The Critical Problems of the Epistle to the Philippians,” Exp 8th 7 (1914): 484–86.

Chapter 6: Preliminary Questions

225

meinde.”9 This apparent rupture is accentuated by the first of two occurences of the adverbial substantive τὸ λοιπόν (cf. 4:8), which introduces a more polemical section (3:2–4:3). The latter segment, which some have viewed as an interpolation,10 has generally been considered to counter the influence of either Christian Judaizers (Beare, Mearns), Gnostic libertines (Schmithals), Law-perfectionist missionaries (Koester), or simply Jews (Rahtjen, Klijn).11 The thanksgiving note of 4:10–20, on the other hand, has often been thought to be in an awkward position and as out of step with the preceding section.12 As a result, many have come to regard canonical Philippians as a rather disjointed and erratic letter, a view which is well summarized by P. Vielhauer: “Der Phil zeigt anders als Gal und Rom keine einheitliche Gedankenführung; seine Themenwechsel sind verbunden mit Stilbrüchen, Stimmungsumschwüngen oder anderen Auffälligkeiten.”13 This lack of thematic unity might be better accounted for, however, if, as Polycarp seems to have been the first to suggest, Paul wrote several letters (ἐπιστολάς) to the Philippians (Pol. Phil. 3.2; cf. Phil 3:1: τὰ αὐτὰ γράφειν ὑµῖν).14 What has also been deemed problematic is the apparent incoherent chronology of the events related in Philippians, and especially the long interval implied between Epaphroditus’ initial arrival at Paul’s side (cf. 4:18), his return back to Philippi after a life-threatening illness (2:25–30), and Paul’s acknowledgement of their contribution (4:10–20). The fact that the Philippians had received news of his condition and had worried about 9

Müller-Bardorff, “Frage,” 592. Cf. Schmithals, “False Teachers,” 71–72. Schmithals rightly notes that it is unadvisable to rely on an evaluation of Paul’s psychological state to explain a potential shift in tone. 10 Edart esteems it to be the work of a later (Lucan) editor. Jean–Baptiste Edart, L’épître aux Philippiens: Rhétorique et composition stylistique (Paris: J. Gabalda, 2002), 265–66, 275. 11 Beare, Philippians, 109; Chris Mearns, “The Identity of Paul’s Opponents at Philippi,” NTS 33 (1987): 194–204; Schmithals, “False Teachers,” 82–122; Koester, “Polemic”; Rahtjen, “Letters,” 170–71; A. F. J. Klijn, “Paul’s Opponents in Philippians III,” NovT 7.4 (1965): 278–84. Note: other hypotheses concerning the identity of these opponents have been advanced, as the aforementioned articles acknowledge. 12 For instance, Collange asks: “But is a place at the end of a letter at all likely for an expression of thanks?” Collange, Philippians, 5. 13 Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen une die Apostolischen Väter (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1975), 159. 14 On possible external evidence, see Rahtjen, “Letters,” 167–68. Sellew has also sought to use the pseudepigraphical letter to the Laodiceans as further external evidence, but his case has failed to convince. See Philip Sellew, “‘Laodiceans’ and the Philippians Fragments Hypothesis,” HTR 87.1 (1994): 17–28; Paul A. Holloway, “The Apocryphal ‘Epistle to the Laodiceans’ and the Partitioning of Philippians,” HTR 91.3 (1998): 321– 25; idem, Consolation; 9–11; Philip Sellew, “‘Laodiceans’ and Philippians Revisited: A Response to Paul Holloway,” HTR 91.3 (1998): 327–29.

226

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

him (2:26) would seem to suggest that, even if one assumes that Paul was imprisoned in Ephesus, several weeks, if not several months, had elapsed before Paul actually penned his letter. If 4:10–20 had not been written and sent separately at first, then it would imply that Paul had delayed his acknowledgement for an interminable period, which would make him look like a very callous and ungrateful person indeed.15 These issues have led to the formulation of a number of partition hypotheses involving two (Völter, Goodspeed, Friedrich, Lindemann, Gnilka),16 or three letters (Schmithals, Müller-Bardorff, Rahtjen, Beare, Collange, Koester, Bornkamm, Schenk, Bormann),17 though no definite consensus has been reached as to the exact delineation of the various fragments, especially with regard to 4:2–9 and 4:21–23.18 One typical scenario has Paul write letter A (4:10–20), perhaps an “epistolary receipt,”19 immediately after Epaphroditus’ delivery of the Philippians’ contribution, possibly whilst still in prison (cf. 4:14). The latter falls sick, which greatly worries the Philippians who had somehow heard the news and were beginning to show some signs of discord (cf. 1:27). Meanwhile, Paul has either been taken or has remained in custody (cf. 1:12–14), and decides to send Epaphroditus back to Philippi with letter B (1:1–3:1/1a; 4:2/4–7/9, 21–23). Later,

15

To Schmithals, this would amount to an “unbelievable … instance of forgetfulness.” Schmithals, “False Teachers,” 77. Cf. Rahtjen, “Letters,” 172–73; Bornkamm, “Philipperbrief,” 196; Bormann, Philippi, 112–13. 16 Völter, “Philipper”; Edgar J. Goodspeed, An Introduction to the New Testament (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1937), 88–96; Gerhard Friedrich, “Der Brief an die Philipper,” in Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser, Philipper, Kolosser, Thessalonicher und Philemon (eds. J. Becker, H. Conzelmann, and G. Friedrich; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 126–28; Andreas Lindemann, Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion (BHT 58; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1979), 23–25; Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 5–11. 17 Schmithals, “False Teachers”; Müller-Bardorff, “Frage”; Rahtjen, “Letters”; Beare, Philippians, 1–5; Collange, Philippians, 3–8; Koester, “Polemic”; idem, History and Literature of Early Christianity (vol. 2 of Introduction to the New Testament; 2nd ed.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000), 53–54, 136–38; Bornkamm, “Philipperbrief”; Schenk, Philipperbriefe, 334–36; Bormann, Philippi, 118. Symes has even suggested five different letter fragments. See J. E. Symes, “Five Epistles to the Philippians,” Interpreter 10.2 (1914): 167–70. 18 For an exhaustive list of the various proponents of partition hypotheses until 1985, see David E. Garland, “The Composition and Unity of Philippians: Some Neglected Literary Factors,” NovT 27.2 (1985): 141–42 (n. 3). 19 John L. White and Keith A. Kensinger, “Categories of Greek Papyrus Letters,” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1976 (ed. G. MacRae; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 82. Cf. Koester, History, 136.

Chapter 6: Preliminary Questions

227

he receives a report about some adversaries disrupting the community and pens an incisive letter C (3:1b/2–4:1/3).20 As already mentioned, these explanations have failed to garner consensus,21 however, and every one of these arguments, none of which, as J.-F. Collange has suggested, are completely irrefutable,22 has been met by a number of counter-arguments of variable quality and persuasiveness.23 To begin with, the number of partition hypotheses somewhat poses a problem, for it illustrates that the seams of the various letters may not be as evident as it is sometimes claimed – although it is conceivable that epistolary markers would have been removed in the editorial process.24 The objection that Philippians lacks coherence may itself overlook the fact that letter production was not always a straightforward process, as H.-J. Klauck has demonstrated in his study of Cicero’s letters.25 The mention of ἐπιστολαί by Polycarp (Phil. 3.2), which A. von Harnack and J. Moffatt had understood as consisting of Paul’s letters to the Philippians and to the Thessalo-

20 For succinct summaries of the various possible reconstructions, see Vielhauer, Geschichte, 159–66; Wolfgang Schenk, “Der Philipperbrief in der neueren Forschung (1945–1985),” ANRW 25.4:3280–84; Johannes Schoon-Janssen, Umstrittene “Apologien” in den Paulusbriefen: Studien zur rhetorischen Situation des 1. Thessalonicherbriefes, des Galaterbriefes und des Philipperbriefes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 119–36; Peter Wick, Der Philipperbrief: Der formale Aufbau des Briefs als Schlüssel zum Verständnis seines Inhalts (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1994), 16–32; Bormann, Philippi, 108–18; Jeffrey T. Reed, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 124–52. Cf. Schmithals, “False Teachers,” 79– 80. Reumann also provides a helpful diagram (though he seems to have omitted 4:1–9, 21–23). Reumann, Philippians, 7. 21 Kümmel remained adamant: “Aber diese ganze Argumentation ist keineswegs überzeugend … Es besteht darum kein ausreichender Grund, an der ursprünglichen Einheitlichkeit des überlieferten Phil, zu zweifeln.” Werner G. Kümmel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1970), 240–41. 22 Collange, Philippians, 4. 23 As Garland remarks: “None of the arguments against the integrity of the letter, however, is considered insurmountable by advocates of its unity; the counter arguments are just as plausible, if sometimes just as conjectural.” Garland, “Composition,” 143. Once again, Garland offers a rather exhaustive list of the proponents in favour of the unity of the letter until 1985. Ibid., 142–43 (n. 5). 24 Cf. Garland, “Composition,” 153. Garland’s tabulation of the various partition theories is in this respect quite suggestive. 25 See especially pp. 143–44 regarding the use of postscripts or later insertions by the author himself (cf. Cicero, Quint. fratr. 3.1.23). Hans-Josef Klauck, “Compilation of Letters in Cicero’s Correspondence,” in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (NovTSup 110; eds. J. T. Fitzgerald, T. H. Olbricht, and L. M. White; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 131–155.

228

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

nians,26 does not prove to be particularly significant, since later he seems to refer to only one letter (Phil. 11:3: in principio epistulae eius).27 The travelogue of 2:19–30 may not be as out of place as it first appears, but may serve to establish Timothy and Epaphroditus as commendable servants and imitators of Christ and, therefore, as worthy models to follow (and by whom the Philippians will be comforted).28 In fact, the seemingly disorganized body of Philippians may be in keeping with the usual (and perhaps expected) stylistic fluidity of the body section of Hellenistic letters.29 The aorist verbs of 2:25–30, which B. D. Rahtjen found suggestive, need not imply that Epaphroditus had already returned.30 The imperative χαίρετε (3:1, 4:4), which is often thought to have been part of a greeting formula, is never used by Paul, or in ancient letters in general, in such a way. It certainly does not have this sense in 2:18 and in 1 Thessalonians 5:16,31 and thus need not be reduced to “an epistolary cliché.”32 The shift in tone at 3:1, the “Stein des Anstosses,”33 and the “widely different attitudes” between 1:27–2:18 and 3:2–4:3,34 may have also been slightly exaggerated. M. Dibelius was certainly not moved by the supposedly illogical flow of the letter. “Even the apparently planless order of 26 Adolf Harnack, Die Pfaff ’schen Irenäus-Fragmente als fälschungen Pfaffs Nachgewiesen: Miscellen zu den Apostolischen Vätern, den Acta Pauli, Apelles, dem Muratorischen Fragment, den pseudocyprianischen Schriften und Claudianus Marmertus (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1900), 91–92; Moffatt, Introduction, 174. 27 Schmithals himself found this piece of evidence “hazardous.” Schmithals, “False Teachers,” 79. A refutation of all potential external evidence is succinctly provided by Holloway. Holloway, Consolation, 8–11. Cf. Lightfoot, Philippians, 140–42; Jones, “Integrity,” 465–66; B. S. Mackay, “Further Thoughts on Philippians,” NTS 8 (1961): 161– 63. 28 R. Alan Culpepper, “Co-Workers in Suffering: Philippians 2:19–30,” RevExp 77 (1980): 349–58; Paul A. Holloway, “Alius Paulus: Paul’s Promise to Send Timothy at Philippians 2.19–24,” NTS 54.4 (2008): 542–56. Paul’s travelogue seems to follow the pattern of Hellenistic letters. See Alexander, “Letter-Forms,” 93. 29 Alexander, “Letter-Forms,” 90–96. 30 Four of these verbs (ἠκούσατε, ἠσθένησεν x2, ἠλέησεν, ἤγγισεν) actually relate to Epaphroditus’ past illness, while ἡγησάµην simply suggests that Paul had determined to send him back. Thus, only ἔπεµψα may be taken as an epistolary aorist. Contra Rahtjen, “Letters,”169–70. Cf. Mackay, “Philippians,” 165–67. 31 Cf. Garland, “Composition,” 149–50; Alexander, “Letter-Forms,” 97. The imperative form of the verb appears clearly in only one papyrus (P.Alex. 27, A.D. II–III), but the text is too fragmentary to determine with certainty whether it was part of the closing formula or not. The reading is uncertain in two more documents: SB IV 7479 (A.D. VI– VII) and SB VI 9527 (A.D. IV). 32 Holloway, Consolation, 15. 33 Heinrich J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament (3rd ed.; Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1892), 270. 34 Schmithals, “False Teachers,” 74.

Chapter 6: Preliminary Questions

229

the individual sections can probably be explained simply as being caused by digressions such as are usual in these circumstances,” he remarked, before concluding: “All the peculiarities of the sequence of thought are comprehensible without assuming editorial work or interpolations.”35 Equally abrupt changes in mood or tone are observable in other Pauline letters, which are thought by most to form a unity (cf. Rom 16:17; l Cor 15:58– 16:1; Gal 3:1, 4:21).36 Other critics have argued that the brusque transition at 3:1 could “be accounted for by a variety of rhetorical considerations,”37 including an epistolary hesitation formula,38 or even by social conventions.39 M. Goguel’s conclusion thus seems apposite: “Les deux morceaux juxtaposés ne révèlent ni des sentiments, ni des situations contradictoires. Il y a seulement juxtaposition de développements.”40 The following polemical section of 3:2–4:1 might therefore be understood as a cautionary digression against the adversaries already alluded to in 1:27–28.41 It may be further remarked that, in classical Greek, the substantive τὸ λοιπόν could often function as a mere transitional term meaning henceforth,42 while in post-classical Greek, M. E. Thrall has observed, “λοιπόν … becomes little more than a connecting particle used in the same way as οὖν … to introduce either a logical conclusion or a fresh point in the pro-

35

Dibelius, Approach, 166. Cf. Mackay, “Philippians,” 161–70. 37 Duane F. Watson, “A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians and Its Implications for the Unity Question,” NovT 30.1 (1988): 86. Watson (p. 82) further contends that “the tonal shift between 3:1 and 3:2 is not very severe, is not maintained throughout the chapter, was anticipated in the reference to opponents in 1:28–29 and 2:14–16, recurs in 3:18– 19, and has parallels in other Pauline pericopes.” Edart considers 3:1 as “un verset de transition … composite,” 3:1b having been added by a later editor. Edart, Philippiens, 214–15, 220. 38 Jeffrey T. Reed, “Philippians 3:1 and the Epistolary Hesitation Formulas: The Literary Integrity of Philippians, Again,” JBL 115.1 (1996): 63–90. Cf. Reed, Discourse, 228–65. 39 Fitzgerald observes for instance: “When viewed from the perspective of ancient discussions of friendship and enmity, the sharp change of tone at 3:2 and the strong use of invective in 3:2–19 are not even surprising; the ridiculing of one’s enemies is but the natural antithesis to the praising of one’s friends.” John T. Fitzgerald, “Philippians, Epistle to the,” ABD 5:321. 40 Maurice Goguel, Introduction au Nouveau Testament (vol. 4; Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1925), 400–409. 41 Whether or not one considers them to be different persons, their fate is said to be identical: ἥτις ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας (1:28), τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια (3:19). Cf. Werner G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (rev. and enl. ed.; London: SCM, 1975), 333. 42 See LSJ, s.v., λοιπός; Smyth, Grammar, 361; Anders Cavallin, “(τὸ) λοιπόν: Eine bedeutungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung,” Eranos 39 (1941): 121. 36

230

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

gress of thought”43 – which may explain why it is usually translated by de cetero in the Vulgate (cf. Phil 3:1, 4:8; 2 Thess 3:1; Heb. 10:13). In Paul’s other epistles, it does not always introduce a conclusion in any case, nor is it necessarily found at the close of the letter (e.g., 1 Cor 7:29, 2 Thess 3:1; cf. 1 Cor 4:2, Gal 6:17, 1 Thess 4:1).44 In 3:1, it may thus simply be operating as a connecting word linking the announcement of Epaphroditus’ return (2:25–30) to the command to rejoice (3:1a: χαίρετε; cf. 2:28: ἵνα ἰδόντες αὐτὸν πάλιν χαρῆτε; 2:29: προσδέχεσθε οὖν αὐτὸν ἐν κυρίῳ µετὰ πάσης χαρᾶς), which itself is expressed in the same (grammatical) mood as the following three imperatives βλέπετε (3:2). Incidentally, this directive echoes his earlier exhortation to rejoice in 2:18 (τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ καὶ ὑµεῖς χαίρετε καὶ συγχαίρετέ µοι), which is later reiterated in 4:4 (χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε). As for the delay of Paul’s acknowledgement until the end of the letter, it has been explained in various ways. G. Friedrich has compared 4:15–20 to other passages such as Romans 15:23–24, where Paul finally divulges the real reason for his letter and announces his future visit to Rome.45 P. A. Holloway has explained it by the rhetorical exigence placed upon Paul to thank the Philippians without negating his own αὐτάρκεια.46 L. Alexander, on the other hand, has suggested that commentators’ unease with Paul’s apparent delay might be due to a lack of familiarity with ancient letters and an “unconscious adaptation to the conventional epistolary courtesy of our own day,” where thanksgivings are expected right from the onset of a letter-body. 47 In addition to these arguments, many have stressed the lexical and thematic continuity of the letter,48 or resorted to rhetorical and/or epistolary 43

Thrall, Particles, 25, 28. Thrall nonetheless suggests that in Phil 3:1 it could act as an epistolary closing formula. Ibid., 26, 30. Cf. Blass, Grammar, §34.7, p. 94; Vincent, Philippians, xxxii; Henry G. Meecham, “The Meaning of (τὸ) λοιπόν in the New Testament,” ExpTim 48 (1936–1937): 331–32; C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 161–62; Jerker Blomqvist, Greek Particles in Hellenistic Prose (Lund: Gleerup, 1969), 102–103; Alexander, “Letter-Forms,” 96–97; Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 122. 44 Cf. Jones, “Integrity,” 466–67; Garland, “Composition,” 149–50. 45 See Friedrich, “Philipper,” 127. Friedrich does acknowledge Paul’s brief allusion to his desire to preach the gospel in Rome in 1:15, however. 46 Holloway, Consolation, 26–28, 52–54. 47 Alexander, “Letter-Forms,” 98. 48 Mackay, “Philippians”; Pollard, “Integrity”; Robert Jewett, “The Epistolary Thanksgiving and the Integrity of Philippians,” NovT 12.1 (1970): 40–53; William J. Dalton, “The Integrity of Philippians,” Biblica 60 (1979): 97–102; Culpepper, “Co-Workers,” 350–51; R. Russell, “Pauline Letter Structure in Philippians,” JETS 25.3 (1982): 295–306; Robert C. Swift, “The Theme and Structure of Philippians,” BSac 14 (1984):

Chapter 6: Preliminary Questions

231

criticism and discourse analysis to defend its coherence and cohesion,49 though without always reaching concordant conclusions.50 Themes relating to unity (1:27–28; 2:2; 3:16; 4:2), single-mindedness (1:27; 2:2, 5; 3:15), joy (1:4, 18–19; 2:2, 17–18, 28; 3:1; 4:1, 4, 10), humility (2:1–11; 3:1–11, 4:11–13), are perceptible throughout the letter. Rare and/or similar vocabulary occurring at 1:27 (e.g., πολιτεύω), and 2:5–11 (e.g., µορφή), reappears in 3:15–21 (e.g., πολίτευµα, σύµµορφος),51 whilst κοινων- cognates are scattered throughout (κοινωνία: 1:5, 2:1, 3:10; [συγ]κοινωνέω: 4:14–15; συγκοινωνός: 1:7). In fact, 1:3–11 so closely parallels 4:10–20 that T. Zahn once qualified the two passages of “[e]ine Dublette.”52 The conceptual and lexical similarities are certainly suggestive, as is illustrated in the table below:

234–54; Garland, “Composition”; Philippe Rolland, “La structure littéraire et l’unité de l’épître aux Philippiens,” RSR 64 (1990): 213–16; Schoon-Janssen, Apologien, 129–36; Fitzgerald, “Philippians,” ABD 5:320–22; idem, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 148–49; Jonas Holmstrand, Markers and Meaning in Paul: An Analysis of 1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Galatians (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1997), 94–95; Casey W. Davis, Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of the Principles of Orality on the Literary Structure of Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 85–92. 49 Watson, “Rhetorical Analysis”; Alexander, “Letter-Forms”; A. Boyd Luter and Michelle V. Lee, “Philippians as Chiasmus: Key to the Structure, Unity and Theme Questions,” NTS 41 (1995): 89–101; David A. Black, “The Discourse Structure of Philippians: A Study in Textlinguistics,” NovT 37 (1995): 16–49; Duane F. Watson, “The Integration of Epistolary and Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians,” in The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference (JSNTSup 146; eds. S. Porter and T. Olbricht; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 398–426; idem, “A Reexamination of the Epistolary Analysis Underpinning the Arguments for the Composite Nature of Philippians,” in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (NovTSup 110; eds. J. T. Fitzgerald, T. H. Olbricht, and L. M. White; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 157–77. Davies’ study assumes the integrity of the letter. It neither seeks to defend it nor to establish it, but only deals with it in passing (pp. 66, 118–19). The same could somewhat be said of Geoffrion’s study and of Edart’s commentary. See Davis, Oral Criticism; Geoffrion, Philippians, 1; Edart, Philippiens. 50 Cf. Emil Pretorius, “Role Models for a Model Church: Typifying Paul’s Letter to the Philippians,” Neot 32.2 (1998): 548–49. 51 Cf. Neal Flanagan, “A Note on Philippians 3:20–21,” CBQ 18 (1956): 8–9; Garland, “Composition,” 158–62; L. Gregory Bloomquist, The Function of Suffering in Philippians (JSNTSup 78; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 101–104; Holloway, Consolation, 29–30. Garland concludes that 1:27–4:3 forms a distinct structural unit delineated by an inclusion. 52 Zahn, Einleitung, 399. Cf. Paul Schubert, Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings (Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1939), 76–77; Jewett, “Thanksgiving,” 53; Rolland, “La structure”; Holloway, Consolation, 27–28.

232

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis 1:3–11 εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ (3)/µετὰ χαρᾶς (4) τοῦτο φρονεῖν ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑµῶν (7) ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑµῶν (5) εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἡµέρας (5) ἔργον ἀγαθὸν (6) ἔν τε τοῖς δεσµοῖς µου … συγκοινωνούς (7) ἡ ἀγάπη ὑµῶν … περισσεύῃ (9) πεπληρωµένοι καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης (11) εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον θεοῦ (11)

4:10–20 ἐχάρην δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ µεγάλως (10) τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐµοῦ φρονεῖν (10) ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς λόγον … (15) ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (15)

καλῶς ἐποιήσατε (14) συγκοινωνήσαντές µου τῇ θλίψει (14) περισσεύω· πεπλήρωµαι (18) τὸν καρπὸν τὸν πλεονάζοντα εἰς λόγον ὑµῶν (17 ) τῷ δὲ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡµῶν ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων (20)

These observations notwithstanding, there remain two important obstacles to the literary unity of the letter, which have usually not been given enough consideration by its proponents, that is, the apparent awkwardness of Paul’s delayed reply, and the question of Epaphroditus’ sickness – only B. S. Mackay, C. O. Buchanan, D. E. Garland, and P. A. Holloway, have attempted to provide some explanation for these two issues.53 In answer to the first point, it ought to be remarked that the logistical difficulties associated with the dispatching of letters in the ancient world should not be overlooked too hastily. Unlike administrative and military officials, Paul did not have access to a reliable and effective postal service (unless one assumes, as C. J. Hemer did, that Christian members of Caesar’s household, such as tabellarii, i.e., couriers, made use of the cursus publicus to carry Paul’s letters, which is doubtful).54 He could only depend upon trusted emissaries to transmit his letters to the intended recipients, though one might suppose that he also relied on travellers heading in the desired direction, as Cicero himself sometimes did (Fam. 16.5.2 and 16.6.2).55 In this particular instance, Paul may not have had anyone to run an errand all the way back to Philippi to deliver a brief thank-you note (cf. 2:19–20). If, as B. S. Mackay has noted, a Roman senator like Cicero could at times struggle to find a trustworthy messenger to cross the Adriatic sea (Att.

53 Mackay, “Philippians,” 167–68; Buchanan, “Epaphroditus”; Garland, “Composition,” 150–51; Holloway, Consolation, 24–26. 54 See Hemer, Acts, 273–75. There are a number of issues with Hemer’s suggestion which Llewelyn addresses at length. See Stephen R. Llewelyn, “Sending Letters in the Ancient World: Paul and the Philippians,” TynBul 46 (1995): 342–48. On the cursus publicus in general, see for instance Otto Seeck, “Cursus publicus,” PW[1] 4: 1846–63; Ernst Kornemann, “Postwesen,” PW[1] 22.1: 995–1014; Llewelyn, NewDocs 7, 13–22, #1; Anne Kolb, “Cursus publicus,” BNP. Accessed April 2013. Online: http://reference works.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/cursus-publicus-e308670. 55 Cf. Llewelyn, “Letters,” 348–49, 355–56; Llewelyn, NewDocs 7, 48–57, #3.

Chapter 6: Preliminary Questions

233

1.13.1), then it is very probable that Paul would have also experienced similar, if not greater, difficulties.56 By implication, it is almost certain that the Philippians would not have expected an immediate reply, especially if Epaphroditus was the only apostolos they had sent on this mission.57 Thus, it is not entirely legitimate to assume that they would have been disconcerted, had they not immediately heard from Paul. It is much more likely that they expected Epaphroditus to come back (with some news) once his leitourgia had been completed, that is, a few weeks, if not a few months, later. It is his sickness that actually precipitated his return. Incidentally, we are not given any information about the type and duration of his illness, from which he may have recovered fairly swiftly. To assume months of convalescence is unwarranted in the light of the available evidence. If Paul was imprisoned in Ephesus, and Epaphroditus’ sickness, however severe it may have been, was only momentary, then he could have been back in Philippi within a reasonable time, perhaps within a few weeks. To regard Paul as inconsiderate for his supposedly delayed reply thus does not take into full account both the circumstances and the limitations placed upon him. The only major objection to this proposal seems to be that, in the meantime, the Philippians had received some news about Epaphroditus’ condition (cf. 2:26), just as Paul had been informed of the Philippians’ concern for their envoy (perhaps through Epaphroditus himself).58 At this point, however, we ought to recognise that we have reached the limits of our knowledge regarding the situation. We simply cannot determine with any certainty what actually took place, although it is permissible to envisage that oral (or written) reports had been delivered by acquaintances of Epaphroditus travelling to Philippi.59 If he fell sick on his outward journey, 56

Cf. Mackay, “Philippians,” 169. Note that no one else is mentioned as assisting him in this ministry to Paul. 58 Paul is rather clear in 2:26: it is Epaphroditus who was distressed (ἀδηµονῶν) by the Philippians’ concern, which suggests that he may have heard about their anguish first, and then relayed the information to Paul. 59 Moffatt once adduced the example of a concerned mother from Egypt, who had heard (ἤκουσας, l. 5) rumours about her sick son, a soldier posted in Italy (P.Oxy. XII 1481, A.D. II). James Moffatt, “Philippians II 26 and 2 Tim. IV 13,” JTS 18 (1917): 311– 12. Cf. White, Light, 158–59, #102. Alexander brought attention to a similar letter, in which a soldier based in Portus explained to his mother that he had decided to write to her once he had found someone travelling in her direction: καὶ ἀπὸ Κυρήνης εὑρὼν τὸν πρὸς σὲ ἐρχόµενον ἀνάνκην ἔσχον σοι δηλῶσαι περὶ τῆς σωτηρίας µου, i.e., and having found a man from Cyrene who is coming towards you, I thought it necessary to inform you about my well-being (ll. 5–7, P.Mich. VIII 490, A.D. II; cf. P.Mich. VIII 491, ll. 13– 14: καὶ ’γὼ εἴ τινα ἐὰν εὕρω γράφω σοι, i.e., and if I find someone, I will write to you). Alexander, “Letter-Forms,” 90–94. Cf. John G. Winter, “In the Service of Rome: Letters from the Michigan Collection of Papyri,” CP 22.3 (1927): 237–45; White, Light, 161–64, 57

234

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

as some have proposed,60 then it is possible that the Philippians would have heard the news even before Epaphroditus came to Paul and the latter could write a reply to comfort them. In sum, we concur with Holloway’s conclusion that, “there is nothing in 2:25–30 that requires a letter from Paul to the Philippians after the arrival of Epaphroditus and prior to the canonical epistle.”61 We may conclude this discussion by observing that, in fairness to both sides of the debate, proponents of either position have generally assembled enough arguments to build a rather plausible defence of their respective hypothesis. Whilst we have sympathies for some of the arguments in favour of a partitioned document and recognise some of the difficulties of holding Philippians as one letter, our conviction nonetheless remains that it should be considered and treated as a single literary unit. What eventually persuaded us of this position are the accumulation of all the aforementioned observations, which, in our view, provide reasonable explanations for the main objections against the literary unity, as well as the conceptual and lexical correspondence between 4:10–20 and 1:3–11, which, as we shall argue, typically follows the Pauline pattern of programmatic thanksgiving. To our mind, the parallelism is too significant to be merely coincidental and rather suggests a certain level of editorial sophistication. As J.B. Edart has remarked: “Il est difficile d’imaginer Paul, écrivant une nouvelle épître, reprendre exactement une séquence d’une manière aussi précise à une distance de plusieurs semaines.”62 As we shall argue in our next chapter, the epilogue of 4:10–20 should perhaps be appreciated as bringing Paul’s letter to a fitting conclusion by highlighting the Philippians’ support as the implementation of their κοινωνία in the gospel.63 We may now focus our attention on the genre of the epistle.

6.2 The Question of the Genre of Philippians Since the end of the last century, the general tendency has been to view Paul’s letter to the Philippians as a letter of friendship (ἐπιστολὴ φιλική), though the category itself “by no means implies a common definition, let

#104; Llewelyn, NewDocs 7, 45–46, #2. A similar situation is reported by Llewelyn in NewDocs 7, 50, #3. 60 Mackay, “Philippians,” 168–69; Buchanan, “Epaphroditus”; Bruce, “Paul,” 276. 61 Holloway, Consolation, 26. 62 Edart, Philippiens, 301. 63 So Fitzgerald, “Philippians,” ABD 5:322.

Chapter 6: Preliminary Questions

235

alone agreed reasons for it.”64 As J. Reumann has revealed in his critical review of the history of scholarship on the question, however, this understanding of Philippians was far from evident for the earliest commentators. It is absent from patristic texts, despite the fact that the rhetorically-trained John Chrysostom, and also perhaps John of Damascus and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, interpreted some of Paul’s exhortations in terms of the ancient convention of friendship.65 Rather, it developed progressively as scholars became more attuned to the “rhetoric of friendship,” to borrow L. T. Johnson’s expression, which they perceived to be at play in Philippians.66 The first epistolographic studies of the twentieth century had not actually identified the genre category in ancient documentary sources,67 even though, Reumann forgot to mention,68 H. Koskenniemi did acknowledge the existence of “Freundschaftsbriefe.”69 Building on the work of Koskenniemi, K. Thraede displayed the same familiarity, recognizing that “[i]m antiken Freundschaftsbrief sind φιλία und γράµµατα nach Form und Inhalt

64

Reumann, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 87. Reumann’s conclusion is without appeal: “All this evidence allows one to say Chrysostom saw Paul as reflecting friendship terminology, perhaps even a topos on friendship, but evidence is lacking that Chrysostom viewed any of the epistles or parts of them as ‘letters of friendship’.” There is simply “no designation of letters as ἐπιστολαὶ φιλικαί.” Reumann, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 103. Reumann forgot to mention that Chrysostom’s use of friendship language may actually tell us more about his homiletical adaptation of Paul’s letters, and, consequently, about Chrysostom’s own audience, than it does about his exegesis of Pauline texts. 66 Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 341. 67 Exler, for instance, suggested the following, “somewhat arbitrary,” classification: familiar letters, business letters, petitions and applications, and official letters. He explained, however, that he arranged under the category familiar letters “communications between relatives and friends,” as well as “letters which in their expressions betray a certain degree of familiarity.” Exler, Form, 23. Ziemann had only focused on epistolary forms (e.g., opening and closing formulas), and not genres. See Ferdinand Ziemann, De epistularum Graecarum formulis sollemnibus quaestiones selectae (Halle: Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 1912). Cf. Reumann, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 84– 85. 68 Reumann suggested that Koskenniemi’s study only placed emphasis on family letters. However, this is slightly misrepresentative of Koskenniemi’s work, which did recognise Ps.-Demetrius’ category of ἐπιστολὴ φιλική, and contained a section dedicated to “Die Freundschaftsbriefe” and a chapter on “Die allgemein-philophronetischen Phrasen und Formeln.” See Koskenniemi, Studien, 35–36, 55, 115–27, 128–54. Cf. Reumann, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 84. 69 Koskenniemi, Studien, 115. Yet, he admitted that very little evidence of friendly letters has survived: “Bis zum 1. Jahrhundert scheint er in den Papyri nur ganz spärlich vertreten zu sein, und auch spätter sind unter unserem Belegmaterial nicht gerade viele Freundschaftsbriefe zu finden.” Ibid., 126. 65

236

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

eng aufeinander bezogen.”70 In particular, he found amicitia/φιλία and φιλοφρόνησις to be major topoi in the letters of Cicero, Ovid, Seneca, and Pliny,71 while he also observed resonances of the “τύπος φιλικός des PsDemetrios” in 1 Thess 2:17.72 Yet, he did not specifically attribute a genre to NT letters, showing only interest in the “παρουσία-Motiv” of a few selected passages (e.g., 1 Thess 2:17; 1 Cor 5:3; Col 2:5).73 Similarly, in his voluminous survey of hellenistische Gattungen, K. Berger refused to view “der Freundschaftsbrief” as “eine besondere Gattung,” simply considering friendship as a topos which can be encountered in various types of letters.74 Thus, he advised: “Doch sind nicht schon deswegen die paulinischen Briefe als Freundschaftsbriefe zu deklarieren.”75 J. L. White, likewise, did not esteem the ἐπιστολὴ φιλική to constitute a category of documentary letters, though he acknowledged the Greeks’ “practice of writing pieces of friendly correspondence,”76 as well as Paul’s habitual friendly and familial tone.77 In contrast with White, S. K. Stowers would distinguish the family letter from the friendship letter, which, following Ps.-Demetrius’ classification, he included in his collection of epistolary types, even if he conceded that it is “not common among the papyri.”78 Yet, Stowers rejected the possibility that the NT could contain friendship letters and simply considered that “some letters employ com70

Thraede, Grundzüge, 125. Thraede, Grundzüge, 21–25, 37, 45, 64–65, 68, 70–72, 74–75. 72 Thraede, Grundzüge, 96. 73 Thraede, Grundzüge, 95–106. 74 Klaus Berger, “Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament,” ANRW 25.2:1326– 63 (citation on p. 1329). Cf. idem, “Apostelbrief und apostolische Rede: Zum Formular frühchristlicher Briefe,” ZNW 65.3 (1974): 228, 231. 75 Berger, “Gattungen,” 1329. Cf. Reumann, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 85–86. 76 White, Light, 191. White is slightly confusing at this point since he consents, following Nils Dahl, that the Greeks “may well have originated the idea that the letter of friendship [what Dahl called the familiar letter] was the most authentic kind of letter.” Yet, he actually identifies only four types of documentary letters (an expansion of his 1976 three-type classification): 1) letters of introduction/recommendation; 2) petitions; 3) family letters; 4) memoranda/ὑπόµνηµα (which becomes royal letters in his 1988 classification). Further down, in his discussion of Pseudo Demetrius’ twenty-one epistolary types, he then admits: “Three sample letter types appear to correspond to the three isolable papyrus letter types illustrated and explained earlier, namely, the friendly (or family), commendatory, and supplicatory (petitionary) letters.” Ibid., 193–97, 203. See also White and Kensinger, “Categories,” 79–91; John L. White, “Ancient Greek Letters,” in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms and Genres (ed. D. E. Aune; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 88–95. Cf. Reumann, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 85. 77 White, “Letters,” 98. 78 Stowers, Letter Writing, 60. 71

Chapter 6: Preliminary Questions

237

monplaces and language from the friendly letter tradition.”79 More generally, Stowers initially dismissed Paul’s reliance on the social convention of friendship: “The classical ideal of friendship is not and could not have been expressed in Paul’s letters … Although some conventions from the friendly letter do appear in the Pauline letters, a family ethos predominates”80 – a position which L. Alexander would also later adopt.81 Stowers eventually changed his opinion, asserting a few years later that “[s]cholars of ancient letter writing have long identified Philippians as a letter of friendship.”82 For he had come to the conclusion that the letter is “densely packed with the motifs of friendship,” and suggested that Philippians was best understood “as a hortatory or psychagogic letter of friendship.”83 According to Reumann, the genre became more widely accepted in North American scholarship only after A. Malherbe familiarized NT scholars with the friendly letter type of Ps.-Demetrius in his introductory survey of ancient epistolary theory, and applied the category to 1 Thessalonians in 1987.84 However, in 1986, L. T. Johnson had already argued extensively that friendship was “the most distinctive thematic element in Philippians.”85 By then, a similar view had also begun to take root in German scholarship and to feature more prominently in a number of studies and commentaries on Philippians.86 In North America, the emergence of this

79

Stowers, Letter Writing, 60. Such letters indeed “became typical of educated monks and bishops” in later antiquity. Ibid., 46. 80 Stowers, Letter Writing, 42–43. Cf. Edwin A. Judge, “St Paul as a Radical Critic of Society,” in Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E. A. Judge (ed. D. M. Scholer; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008), 106–107; repr. from Interchange 16 (1974). 81 Alexander, “Letter-Forms,” 87–101 (esp. pp. 95, 99–100). 82 Stowers only referenced H. Koskenniemi, K. Thraede, L. M. White, and himself. It is rather surprising of Stowers to be referencing his own work as evidence of scholars’ long awareness of Philippians as an exemplar of the friendly letter, while, in actual fact, he had failed to draw any such connection in the work he mentions. See Stowers, “Friends,” 107 (esp. n. 6). On the weaknesses of Stowers’ argumentation, see Reumann, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 88–90. 83 Stowers, “Friends,” 107–108. So Fee, Philippians, 12–14. 84 Abraham J. Malherbe, “Ancient Epistolary Theorists,” OJRS 5 (1977): 3–77 (repr., SBLSBS 19, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); idem, Paul and Thessalonians, 73. See also idem, The Letters to the Thessalonians (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 80, 84, 90; idem, “Paul’s Self-Sufficiency (Philippians 4:11),” in Friendship, Flattery and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World (ed. J. T. Fitzgerald; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 125–39. Cf. Reumann, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 84–85, 105. 85 Johnson, Writings, 341. 86 See for instance Schenk, Philipperbriefe, 62–65; Rudolf Pesch, Paulus und seine Lieblingsgemeinde: Drei Briefe an die Heiligen von Philippi (Freiburg: Herder, 1985),

238

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

new perspective on the letter appears to have culminated with L. M. White’s 1990 article, which investigated the (classical) paradigm of friendship apparent throughout Philippians.87 White indeed argued that the epistle embodied “a Pauline adaptation of the Hellenistic moral paradigm of φιλία (friendship).”88 Noting “an emphasis on terms associated with the virtue of friendship (φιλία),” White suggested that Philippians, like 1 Thessalonians, represented “primarily a friendly hortatory letter,” which “holds to conventions seen in the epistolary theorists.”89 White would later be criticized by Reumann, however, for merely recognising a friendship topos in Philippians and for not demonstrating how Paul actually applied such conventions. As Reumann remarked: “All in all, White’s is a case for a relationship of friendship, within a Greek topos, illustrated by 2:6–11, within 2:1–18 as moral teaching. ‘Letter of friendship’ here (p. 206 is as close as White comes to using the term) means a hortatory letter between friends.”90 Still, White’s views rapidly made an impact on scholarship and were relayed in J. T. Fitzgerald’s entry in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, in which he characterized Philippians as “essentially a letter of friendship.”91 It also gained a prominent place in three of the four essays dedicated to the question of the language of friendship in Philippians, which were published in the edited volume Friendship, Flattery and Frankness of Speech in 1996.92 Later, A. C. Mitchell would likewise hail Philippians as “the richest Pauline treasure of friendship,” in which Paul “not only employs the conventions of the friendly letter,” but “also utilizes the conventions of friendship in expressing his relation to a community that was apparently quite be-

63–64; Schoon-Janssen, Apologien, 136–38. Cf. Reumann, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 87. 87 White, “Morality.” 88 White, “Morality,” 201. White concluded: “Thus, Paul has grounded the fundamental ethical imperative of the Christian’s social relationships within the community in the Greek ideal of virtue (friendship) exemplified in Christ’s own actions.” Ibid., 213. 89 White, “Morality,” 206. 90 Reumann, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 92 (italics original). White indeed only referenced the sections of the aforementioned works by Malherbe and Stowers which deal with paraenetic letters. Cf. White, “Morality,” 206 (n. 20). 91 Fitzgerald, “Philippians,” ABD 5:320. Fitzgerald has remained constant in his opinion. See idem, “Paul and Friendship,” in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook (ed. J. P. Sampley; Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2003), 333–34; idem, “Christian Friendship: John, Paul, and the Philippians,” Interpretation 61 (2007): 293–96. Cf. Wayne A. Meeks and John T. Fitzgerald, eds., The Writings of St. Paul (2nd ed.; New York: Norton, 2007), 87. 92 Essays were by A. J. Malherbe, K. L. Berry, J. Reumann, and J. T. Fitzgerald. See John T. Fitzgerald, ed., Friendship, Flattery and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 83–160.

Chapter 6: Preliminary Questions

239

loved to him.”93 Meanwhile, B. Witherington III would entitle his 1994 commentary Friendship and Finances in Philippi, although, as Reumann has rightly noted, “little is then said about friendship [or finances] in the commentary, and the notion of a letter of friendship is not broached.”94 So much so that, by 2002, R. Metzner’s conclusion that Philippians took on the “Charakter eines Freundschaftsbriefes” would have hardly sounded original.95 As Reumann has remarked, however, such convergence of opinions should not be perceived as a sign that, by the late 1990s, scholars had finally agreed on the question of the genre of Philippians, which progressively (and confusingly) became intertwined with that of the identification of a friendship topos in the letter. Rhetorical critics, for example, never had a homogenous view on the matter, but debated whether the rhetorical species of the letter was juridical, epideictic, deliberative, or an amalgam of all three.96 H. D. Betz considered it to be an administrative letter of the same nature as 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, D. Aune regarded it as a letter of gratitude and paraenesis, whilst T. Engberg-Pedersen judged it to be “through and through a letter of paraklesis.”97 Subsequent studies by D. Peterlin,98 L. Bormann,99 J. T. Reed,100 M. L. Stirewalt,101 or D. E. 93

Alan C. Mitchell, “‘Greet the Friends by Name’: New Testament Evidence for the Greco-Roman Topos on Friendship,” in Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship (SBL RBS 34; ed. J. T. Fitzgerald; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 233. Mitchell’s coverage of Philippians is actually little original, and mainly summarizes the state of research. 94 Witherington III, Friendship. Cf. Reumann, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 99. The same year, Jaquette fully embraced Philippians as a hortatory or psychagogic letter of friendship to elucidate Paul’s contemplation of death in Phil 1:21–26. See James L. Jaquette, “A Not-So-Noble Death: Figured Speech, Friendship and Suicide in Philippians 1:21–26,” Neot 28 (1994): 177–92. Cf. Fee, Philippians, 2–7, 12–14. 95 Rainer Metzner, “In aller Freundschaft: Ein frühchristlicher Fall freundschaftlicher Gemeinschaft (Phil 2.25–30),” NTS 48.1 (2002): 129. 96 Reumann’s observation is telling: “Schenk had termed chap. 3 ‘juridical’; Kennedy called the entire letter ‘epideictic’; Watson preferred ‘deliberative rhetoric’. Dormeyer, in responding to Schenk, termed Phil 3:2–4:3, 8–9 (Letter C) a ‘classical friendship-letter,’ of a ‘mixed sort’ and ‘on a level above the basic genre of Aristotelian rhetoric’.” Reumann, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 92. 97 Hans Dieter Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 139; David E. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 210; Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 109 (italics original). 98 Peterlin does not discuss the genre or friendly character of the letter in any detail, but focuses on the apparent disunity within the Philippian church. See Peterlin, Philippians. 99 Bormann interprets Paul’s relationship with the Philippians through the lens of Roman patronage. Bormann, Philippi, 161–224.

240

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

Briones,102 would either dismiss explicitly or implicitly the epistolary genre as applicable to Philippians (though some found the topos of friendship relevant), or contend that Paul was more or less overtly critical of the cultural convention of friendship. More recently, despite consenting that “Philippians might be discussed helpfully in terms of other modalities … as a ‘letter of friendship’,” P. A. Holloway has argued that, on the basis of its function and content, “Philippians is first and foremost a letter of consolation” (ἐπιστολὴ παραµυθητική), which, from an ancient perspective, aimed at removing “grief by rational argument and frank exhortation.”103 Adopting a feminist rhetorical perspective, J. A. Marchal, on the other hand, has contended that Paul’s friendship rhetoric is all but friendly (by modern standards), but deeply elitist, kyriarchical, and socially exclusive.104 As this succinct overview illustrates, Reumann’s 1996 conclusion concerning the checkered history of scholarship on the subject remains particularly pertinent. It is almost as if he had foreseen the growing chorus of divergent voices. His reservations on the supposed distinctiveness of Paul’s friendship language in Philippians and on the validity of the friendly letter as an epistolary category have also retained their relevance and are worth reiterating in full here: The chief finding from the history of research and patristic references is that the notion of influence from the vocabulary of φιλία or a friendship topos on Paul is better supported than a literary category of ἐπιστολὴ φιλική. There is something of a jump from the mood created by certain words and phrases to a proposed letter form. Philippians ill fits the examples of such a letter type in the theorists’ handbooks, and one wonders if such letters ever were written and were not simply for schoolboy exercises and a classification scheme seldom found in “pure” form, The case for a letter of friendship is chiefly argued

100

See Reed, Discourse, 154–78. Stirewalt argued that Paul’s letters were written after the pattern of official letters and from the standpoint of his apostolic authority, although he conceded that the “major objective” of Philippians was “to express friendship to the assembly” (p. 81). This understanding has been aptly criticized by C. Forbes, however. See M. Luther Stirewalt, Paul, The Letter Writer (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 25–55, 81–91; Christopher Forbes, “Ancient Rhetoric and Ancient Letters: Models for Reading Paul, and Their Limits,” in Paul and Rhetoric (eds. J. P. Sampley and P. Lampe; London: T. & T. Clark, 2010), 158– 59. 102 Briones avoids identifying one specific genre for the letter, as he finds that the friendship model is too restrictive and leads to the exclusion of God from the relational equation. Briones, Financial Policy, 124–26. 103 Holloway, Consolation, 1–2. 104 Joseph A. Marchal, Hierarchy, Unity, and Imitation: A Feminist Rhetorical Analysis of Power Dynamics in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006); idem, “With Friends like These…: A Feminist Rhetorical Reconsideration of Scholarship and the Letter to the Philippians,” JSNT 29.1 (2006): 77–106. 101

Chapter 6: Preliminary Questions

241

from the vocabulary that appears in letters from friend to friend in the Greco-Roman world.105

To be fair to those who view Philippians as a letter of friendship, it should be said that most do not consider Paul to have slavishly followed the guidelines recommended by the ancient epistolary theorists. Malherbe, Stowers, Johnson, and Fitzgerald, all acknowledge Paul’s adaptability visà-vis the conventions, just as much as they recognise the flexibility of the epistolary norms themselves, and discourage the naive expectation of a total correspondence between the theory of the handbooks and the practice of letter-writing.106 As Stowers has remarked: the concept of epistolary types provided the ancient writer with a taxonomy of letters according to typical actions performed in corresponding social contexts and occasions. The types in the handbooks give a sample, in barest outline, of form and language that is appropriate to the logic of the social code in a particular instance. The author, then, could elaborate, combine, and adapt this ideal according to the occasion in view, his purpose and his literary abilities.107

What may we conclude from this discussion then? And how should the question of the genre of Philippians affect our reading of it? We may first observe that all these elements, that is, the paucity of typical friendship letters in ancient sources (including epistolary handbooks, e.g., Ps.-Demetrius, Ps.-Libanius),108 the flexibility of ancient epistolary (and rhetorical) theory, and the mixed character of Paul’s letters, should encourage us to keep a rather general perspective on Philippians. Stowers himself recommends that “scholars must look for letters of mixed types and not just

105

Reumann, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 105 (emphasis added). Malherbe, “Epistolary Theorists,” 4–5; idem, Paul and Thessalonians, 69; idem, Thessalonians, 90–91; Johnson, Writings, 341; Fitzgerald, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 142. Cf. G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 6–12. 107 Stowers, Letter Writing, 56 (emphasis added). Cf. ibid., 53: “The handbooks provide brief descriptions of ideal types for letters. Their authors realized that in practice the types would often be mixed and combined.” Cf. Koskenniemi, Studien, 47–53; White, Light, 190–91, 202; Aune, New Testament, 203; Carol Poster, “A Conversation Halved: Epistolary Theory in Greco-Roman Antiquity,” in Letter-Writing Manuals and Instruction from Antiquity to the Present (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2007), 22. 108 Cf. Katherine G. Evans, “Friendship in Greek Documentary Papyri and Inscriptions: A Survey,” in Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship (SBLRBS 34; ed. J. T. Fitzgerald; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 181–202. Note: these epistolary handbooks have of course been conveniently edited by Malherbe in his above-mentioned article “Ancient Epistolary Theorists”. 106

242

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

the pure ideals.”109 Fitzgerald has likewise remarked that “the identification of any of Paul’s letters in terms of one specific type of letter is an oversimplification.”110 We might therefore do well to resist the temptation of precisely identifying the epistolary (or rhetorical) genre of Philippians, and shall consider it, broadly speaking, as a letter presenting features of the ἐπιστολὴ φιλική, mainly in terms of its tone and vocabulary. 111 Similarly, we shall simply consider the topos of friendship as a broad and general interpretive framework within which the concept of partnership, on which we shall elaborate further in our next two chapters, may be understood as a subcategory. 112 For, as Fitzgerald has again rightly observed, “friendship is not a self-contained topic hermetically sealed off from other subjects,”113 and κοινωνία is but one of the “many important terms and concepts that belong to ancient friendship’s linkage group.”114 This can easily be explained by the fact that, as P. J. T. Endenburg has clearly demonstrated, ancient Greek lacked an “aparte handelsterminologie,” i.e., a distinct trade terminology, and used common terms from the semantic domain of φιλία to designate a wide range of relationships, including business friendships: “het algemeene woord φιλία omsluit allerlei soorten ‘vriendschap’, ook de ‘zakenvriendschap’.”115 If Aristotle provides any insight into popular culture, it may be deduced that ancient partnerships originated from, and indeed flourished within, the context of friendship. Aristotle was certainly not so naive as to think that most people enjoyed his ideal of perfect friendship (τελεία φιλία), that which is based on good and virtue (δι’ ἀρετήν, Eth. eud. 7.2.13; ἡ τῶν ἀγαθῶν φιλία καὶ κατ’ ἀρετὴν ὁµοίων, Eth. nic. 8.3.6). For he recognised that the commonest kind of φιλία was utilitarian in nature (τούτων ἡ µὲν

109

Stanley K. Stowers, “Social Typification and the Classification of Ancient Letters,” in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism (eds. J. Neusner et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 86. 110 Fitzgerald, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 143. Cf. Watson, “Integration,” 402–403; Edart, Philippiens, 33–35, 41. 111 So Reed, Discourse, 172: “Despite the clear parallels, it is probably prudent to view such language in letters as topoi of friendship rather than as a Gattung of friendship. And it is certainly wise not to cast Philippians simplistically into a genre of ‘friendship’, since the evidence, although suggestive, is only sketchy.” Cf. Wick, Philipperbrief, 159–60; Briones, Financial Policy, 125–26. 112 Thus, L. M. White is quite right to point out that “the contractual vocabulary” Sampley identified actually derives from the social conventions of friendship. White, “Morality,” 212. 113 Fitzgerald, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 142. 114 Fitzgerald, “Christian Friendship,” 289. 115 I.e., the general word φιλία encompasses all kinds of ‘friendships’, including ‘business friendships’. Endenburg, Koinoonia, 97.

Chapter 6: Preliminary Questions

243

διὰ τὸ χρήσιµόν ἐστιν ἡ διὰ τῶν πλείστων φιλία, Eth. eud. 7.2.14),116 and bemoaned the fact that the majority conceived of friendship as a χρηµάτων κοινωνία (Eth. nic. 8.14.1).117 Incidentally, this seems to illustrate that, contrary to what Marchal has assumed (as he mainly focused on aristocratic literary sources), friendship should not be solely considered as a male, elitist social convention, for it appealed to more popular classes as well, as epigraphic evidence also suggests.118 In sum, we readily accept friendship as a general framework that provides an informative contextual background for our reading of Paul’s letter to the Philippians, although we shall be careful not to confine our understanding of his dealings with them to a particular cultural ideal, and its accompanying set of codes and conventions, which only a few conservative aristocrats may have held in high esteem.

116 See also Millett’s helpful discussion. Millett, Lending, 114–16. Cf. Konstan, Friendship, 78–79. 117 Appealing to a philosopher such as Aristotle could be problematic in this case, but as P. Marshall has rightly suggested, the “frequent denigration of such [utilitarian] friendships by Aristotle, Cicero and Seneca can be seen as attempts to transcend what was and continued to be the popular understanding of friendship” (emphasis added). Marshall, Enmity, 162. Millett’s cautionary words are equally pertinent: “Aristotle’ writings are much more than a mirror of popular morality, and there are limits beyond which an empiricist reading of his work should not be pressed. He will typically take popular opinion as the starting-point for his examination of a problem, subject it to scrutiny, and, if necessary, modify or reject it.” Millett, Lending, 112. 118 This being said, we concur with Marchal that, generally speaking, NT scholars have lacked precision and critical judgment in their use of the motif of ancient friendship, which certainly was a politically-loaded concept (especially in a Roman upper-class context). He also rightly points out the diversity in form and function of ancient friendships, which should further encourage scholars to distinguish more precisely the various social contexts in which friendships were played out, and to resist over-generalising conclusions. See Marchal, Hierarchy, 24–29, 35–50; idem, “Friends.” For a study of the topos of friendship on epitaphs, see Williams, Roman Friendship, 259–354.

Chapter 7

A Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians 7.1 Introduction: Purpose, Occasion, and Theme(s) of Philippians Closely related to the issues of the genre and literary unity of Philippians examined in the preceding chapter are the questions of its purpose, occasion, and overarching theme(s). As one can easily imagine, scholarly interpretations have greatly varied depending on the critical tools and methods employed to analyse the letter, and depending on one’s position vis-à-vis its literary unity. It is not our aim in the current and subsequent sections (7.1 and 7.2) to review the matter in extensive detail or to provide original answers to these questions. Rather, we simply wish to make a few important observations that will help us identify Paul’s primary concern in writing to the Philippians. This will then allow us to be more alert to the socioeconomic implications of 4:10–20, which, we shall argue, is not just a incidental postscripted note.1 Over the years, scholars have often deplored the lack of a single, coherent thesis clearly discernible throughout the letter, which, for some, has reinforced the impression that Philippians is a disparate and disjointed document.2 The first to have identified one singular motif was probably E. Lohmeyer for whom martyrdom stood out.3 Although the topic of suffering in and for Christ appears prominently at key passages of the letter (e.g., 1:19–26; 2:17), and is in fact treated in a most profound way, as patristic and reformed commentators have long recognised,4 the idea that martyrdom represents the predominant topos has failed to convince the majority

1 So Schubert, Thanksgivings, 76–77. Bahr, Holloway, and Edart, consider 4:10–20 as a postscripted thank-you note written possibly in Paul’s own hand. Gordon J. Bahr, “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters,” JBL 87.1 (1968): 27–41; Holloway, Consolation, 52–54; Edart, Philippiens, 301–302. 2 E.g., Lightfoot, Philippians, 68; Plummer, Philippians, xvii–xviii; Collange, Philippians, 5; Vielhauer, Geschichte, 159. 3 Lohmeyer, Philipper, 5–7. 4 See the helpful review in Bloomquist, Suffering, 18–31.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

245

of scholars.5 Other suggestions regarding its governing themes and concerns have included friendship (as seen briefly in our previous chapter),6 joy,7 unity (or lack thereof),8 consolation,9 humility, 10 (political) steadfastness,11 suffering,12 κοινωνία (as a mode of existence and mutual interdependence in Christ),13 or even partnership (in the gospel).14 To our mind, it seems rather dogmatic and reductionistic to narrow down all the available options to one specific motif. Broadly considered, none of these proposals are mutually exclusive and each topic features at some point in the epistle.15 The last one nonetheless appears to be an important emphasis for reasons that we shall explain in our next section. We shall indeed argue that one of the main reasons of Paul’s letter was to give thanks for the Philippi5 Even Bloomquist considers Lohmeyer’s position to be exaggerated, though he concludes that “suffering is central in Philippians as the occasion of the letter” (p. 193). Bloomquist, Suffering, 51–52, 193. 6 E.g., Lightfoot, Philippians, 66; Johnson, Writings, 340–42; White, “Morality”; Fitzgerald, “Philippians,” ABD 5:320. 7 E.g., John A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament (vol. 4; ed. and rev. by A. R. Fausset; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1873), 121; A. T. Robertson, Paul’s Joy in Christ: Studies in Philippians (rev. ed.; Nashville: Broadman, 1959); Geoffrion, Philippians, 117–23. Morna D. Hooker, “The Letter to the Philippians,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible (vol. 11; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), 469. 8 E.g., Geoffrion, Philippians, 105–117; Peterlin, Philippians; Black, “Discourse”. 9 E.g., Plummer, Philippians, xvi; Holloway, Consolation. 10 E.g., Joseph H. Hellerman, Reconstructing Honor in Roman Philippi: Carmen Christi as Cursus Pudorum (SNTSMS 132; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). 11 Geoffrion, Philippians, 35–82. 12 Nikolaus Walter, “Die Philipper und das Leiden: Aus den Anfangen einer heidenchristlichen Gemeinden,” in Die Kirche des Anfangs: Für Heinz Schumann (eds. R. Schnackenburg et al.; Freiburg: Herder, 1978), 417–34; Robert T. Fortna, “Philippians: Paul’s Most Egocentric Letter,” in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn (eds. R. T. Fortna and B. R. Gaventa; Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 220–34; Bloomquist, Suffering; Oakes, Philippians, 77–102. 13 Aspan, “Philippians,” 193, 212, 217, 227, 290. Aspan’s understanding of κοινωνία is peculiar, to say the least, and is an amalgamation of Hauck and Hainz’ understanding of κοινωνία as Gemeinschaft and Sampley’s idea of societas (pp. 218–226, 290). Thus, it consists of “a social fact,” i.e., a “voluntary association in the Roman world, which if joined, legally bound the participants to one another,” and which Paul employs “in an overtly religious sense” (p. 180). For Paul, κοινωνία then becomes “inseparable” from σωτηρία, and “comprises a complex and profound reality, a mode of existence whose gravity emanates from the central Christian mystery … the death of Jesus upon the cross and his subsequent exaltation as Kyrios over all” (p. 226). Paul thereby elevates κοινωνία as the normative, foundational myth of the Philippian community (pp. 180, 212, 226), and uses it as a synonym of ἐν Χριστῷ (p. 290). 14 E.g., Dalton, “Integrity,” 101; Swift, “Theme”; Luter and Lee, “Philippians,” 91– 92; Ware, Mission, 168–69; Hansen, Philippians, 8. 15 So Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 86–92.

246

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

ans’ κοινωνία in the gospel and to reassure them that his present circumstances had not hampered the progress of his mission (cf. 1:12).

7.2 Paul’s Gratitude for the Philippians’ κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (1:3–11) 7.2.1 Form and Function of Paul’s Opening Thanksgivings Paul’s gratitude for the Philippians’ supporting role in the advance (προκοπή, 1:12) of the gospel becomes apparent once the opening prayer and thanksgiving period of 1:3–11 is brought under close scrutiny. In an insightful study almost a century ago, P. Schubert examined with detailed attention the structure and purpose of the Pauline thanksgivings, which he found to be of a remarkable “formal and functional homogeneity.”16 Realising their significance for a proper understanding of the content of the apostle’s letters, Schubert cautioned scholars not to underestimate this epistolary feature, insisting that “it would be a mistake fraught with serious consequences to assume that the function of the Pauline thanksgivings is unimportant or negligible because it is introductory.”17 His careful analysis of every thanksgiving period in the uncontested and contested Pauline letters eventually led him to conclude that these played a crucial role: But we are entirely safe in saying that the significant, characteristic and primary function of the Pauline thanksgivings is decidedly not to furnish a liturgical or semi-liturgical proemium, a literary or semi-literary introduction, but that the thanksgivings are functionally an essential constitutive element of the Pauline epistolography. Their province is to indicate the occasion for and the contents of the letters which they introduce.18

Upon comparing the conceptual and lexical parallelism of Philippians 1:3– 11 and 4:10–20 in particular, Schubert found further supporting evidence “of the fact which holds true in every case, that each thanksgiving not only announces clearly the subject-matter of the letter, but also foreshadows unmistakably its stylistic qualities, the degree of intimacy and other important characteristics.”19 More recently, Schubert’s views have been echoed 16 Schubert, Thanksgivings, 34. This is clearly illustrated by his summary table on pp. 54–55, which is followed by equally valuable explanations. Schubert identified two main structural types: 1) a first (more common) group whereby the principal verb εὐχαριστέω is followed by one, two, or three participial clauses, and then by a final clause (e.g., Phil, Phlm, 1 Thess); 2) a second group whereby the main verb is followed by a subordinate causal ὅτι-clause, to which is sometimes subordinated a consecutive ὥστε-clause (e.g., Rom, 1 Cor). Ibid., 35–36. 17 Schubert, Thanksgivings, 24. 18 Schubert, Thanksgivings, 26–27 (emphasis added). Cf. ibid., 36–38. 19 Schubert, Thanksgivings, 77.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

247

by a number of scholars such as P. Arzt-Grabner, who has also come to the conclusion that “Paul’s thanksgivings are much more than mere formulaic expressions of closeness or formal receipts for oral or written news.”20 For “they help to lay a fundamental basis on which he can better establish his issues, intentions, and requests.”21 Let us examine then the structure and significance of 1:3–11. 7.2.2 Structure and Significance of 1:3–4 Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ µου (main verb)

ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ µνείᾳ

ὑµῶν

(causal adv. phrase) (subj. gen.)

πάντοτε (temporal adv.)

ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει µου ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑµῶν (temporal adv. phrase)

µετὰ χαρᾶς τὴν δέησιν ποιούµενος (temporal participial clause)

As regards Philippians specifically, Schubert demonstrated that the thanksgiving section was structured according to a regular syntactical pattern with a main finite verb, εὐχαριστῶ (1:3), on which hinges two subordinate participles, ποιούµενος and πεποιθώς (1:4, 6), and which culminates with a double purpose ἵνα-clause expressing Paul’s ultimate aspirations: (ἵνα) ἡ ἀγάπη ὑµῶν ἔτι µᾶλλον καὶ µᾶλλον περισσεύῃ κτλ. (1:9–11).22 He high20 Peter Arzt-Grabner, “Paul’s Letter Thanksgiving,” in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form (eds. S. E. Porter and S. A. Adams; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 156. But see Terence Y. Mullins, “Formulas in New Testament Epistles,” JBL 91 (1972): 387–88; Reed, Discourse, 202–203. 21 Arzt-Grabner, “Thanksgiving,” 156. Cf. William Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973), 31–33; Peter T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgiving in the Letters of Paul (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), 262; Aune, Literary Environment, 186; Swift, “Theme,” 237–38; David E. Garland, “Philippians 1:1–26: The Defense and Confirmation of the Gospel,” RevExp 77 (1980): 328–30; Jewett, “Thanksgiving,” 53. 22 Schubert, Thanksgivings, 13–14. Cf. ibid., 34–39. However, Schubert acknowledged the “peculiar structural additions” of this thanksgiving period, i.e., the presence of a new main clause at 1:9 (καὶ τοῦτο προσεύχοµαι), which he explained as follows: “because of the long strung-out developments of thought that intervene Paul, in order to reach this required point, was obliged to make a new syntactical beginning to make it

248

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

lighted another particularity of the elaborate thanksgiving period of Philippians, that is, the unusual presence of two causal adverbial phrases: ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ µνείᾳ ὑµῶν (1:3), and ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑµῶν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἡµέρας ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν (1:5). Schubert acknowledged that, at the time of writing, commentators were almost unanimous concerning the meaning of the first phrase (and have since then mostly remained of the same opinion), the great majority taking it as temporal, whereby Paul would give thanks to God whenever he would remember the Philippians (the genitive ὑµῶν, in this sense, is objective, as is most often, though not always, the case when qualifying µνεία).23 Based on his examination of the syntactical pattern of Pauline thanksgivings, Schubert came to understand the phrase altogether differently, however. He suggested that viewing the first ἐπί- phrase of 1:3 as temporal led to an awkward reading of the passage, which tolerated an unnecessarily “cumbersome and clumsy aggregate of temporal phrases in direct succession” (i.e., I thank God whenever I remember you, always, in every prayer of mine for you).24 He further argued that it was incongruous with the established Pauline pattern of causal ἐπί- (τινι τινος) phrases in thanksgiving periods, whereby a dative is usually followed by a subjective genitive (e.g., ἐπὶ τῇ χάριτι τοῦ θεοῦ, 1 Cor 1:4; ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑµῶν, Phil 1:5; cf. 1 Thess 3:9: ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ χαρᾷ ᾗ χαίροµεν δι᾽ ὑµᾶς).25 In fact, whenever Paul assures his audience of his prayerful remembrance by means of a participial phrase (µνείαν τινος ποιούµενος) and a temporal ἐπί- phrase, ἐπί is normally followed by a genitive (e.g., ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν µου/ἡµῶν, Rom 1:9– 10; 1 Thess 1:2; Phlm 4; cf. Eph 1:16). Moreover, he demonstrated that, in other (non-biblical) Koine sources, it is the construction εὐχαριστῶ ἐπί τινι clear that he now comes to the statement of the purpose of his prayer for the Philippians” (p. 14). 23 Schubert, Thanksgivings, 60, 73–74, 79–81. Cf. Vincent, Philippians, 5–6; Fee, Philippians, 78–79; Paul A. Holloway, “Thanks for the Memories: On the Translation of Phil 1.3,” NTS 52.3 (2006): 422; Hansen, Philippians, 45–46. 24 Schubert, Thanksgivings, 74. Schubert’s interpretation was later followed by O’Brien, Peterman, Datiri, Dickson, Reumann, Briones, and partly by Holloway and Reed (they accept the causative character of the ἐπί-clause in 1:3, but reject ὑµῶν as a subjective genitive). Zahn, von Harnack, and Michael, amongst others (Maldonatus, Homberg, Peirce, Michaelis, Bretschneider, Hofmann, according to Meyer), had expressed similar views earlier, however. See O’Brien, Thanksgiving, 41–46; Peterman, Gift, 93–99; Datiri, “Finances,” 167–69; Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 123; Reumann, Philippians, 102–103; Briones, Financial Policy, 105–110; Holloway, “Thanks,” 421 (n. 10); Reed, Discourse, 199–202. Cf. Meyer, Philippians, 14–15; J. Hugh Michael, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians (MNTC; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928), 10; Fee, Philippians, 78 (n. 29). 25 For 1 Thess 3:9, Schubert argued that the “force of the subjective genitive” was conveyed by δι᾽ ὑµᾶς. Schubert, Thanksgivings, 61. Cf. ibid., 75.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

249

that is “most commonly used to express the cause for which thanks are offered,”26 that is, the “ground or reason”27 – the amount of literary and documentary evidence Schubert adduced for the phrase εὐχαριστῶ τινι is more substantial than that for εὐχαριστῶ ἐπί τινι, however.28 Although the ambiguity of this first ἐπί- phrase is not easily dispelled in Greek (one almost wishes that Paul had used a possessive pronoun, i.e., either ἐµός or ὑµέτερος), and is in fact transferred into Latin as well (super/ in omni memoria vestra/vestri, 1:3; cf. super communicatione vestra in evangelio, 1:5),29 the reasons aforementioned make us agree with Schubert that this adverbial phrase is best understood as causative, that is, as expressing Paul’s primary motive for his thanksgiving: the Philippians’ remembrance of him (taking ὑµῶν as a subjective genitive, just as in 1:5), which materialised itself through their leitourgia performed by the hands of Epaphroditus. In this case, only a subjective genitive ὑµῶν would appear to make sense since it would be quite odd for Paul to give thanks for his own remembrance of the Philippians. P. A. Holloway, who understands the prepositional phrase causally, has nonetheless argued otherwise, insisting that “the natural sense of the Greek in Phil 1.3” compels one to view ὑµῶν as an objective genitive,30 which is certainly possible grammatically. However, it should be pointed out that 26

Schubert, Thanksgivings, 77. Blass, Grammar, §43.3, p. 137. 28 See especially Schubert, Thanksgivings, 141–79. O’Brien and Holloway also adduce a succinct list of relevant literary and documentary evidence. See O’Brien, Thanksgiving, 43 (n. 105); Holloway, “Thanks,” 421 (n. 7 and 8). On the thanksgiving pattern in honorific and votive inscriptions (εὐχαριστῶ τινι, i.e., a benefactor, and εὐχαριστῶ/ εὐχαριστοῦµεν τῷ θεῷ), see also Robert, Hellenica 10 (1955): 58–62. 29 The 1598 Clementine Vulgate settled for the reading in omni memoria vestri, which lifts any ambiguity. However, in Vetus Latina versions, the possessive pronoun vestra in the variant super omni memoria vestra seems to suggest that the genitive ὑµῶν might have once been understood as subjective, just as in 1:5 where both the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate have vestra. Surprisingly, however, Ambrosiaster and Theodore of Mopsuestia do not show this understanding in their commentaries (which have this reading). See Ambrosiaster, ad Phil. 1:3, p. 131; Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodori episcopi Mopsuesteni in epistolas B. Pauli commentarii: The Latin version with the Greek Fragments (ed. H. B. Swete; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1880; repr., Westmead: Gregg International, 1969), 201. On the earlier variants see Erasmus, annotations, 431; Frede, Philippenses, 52–54. Note: the origin of the Latin text used by Ambrosiaster remains debated. Souter, amongst others, always thought that Ambrosiaster followed a Cyprian form of an Old Latin version, but at the turn of the twentieth century von Dobschütz suggested that he might have translated it independently from the Greek text itself. In 1:3, Ambrosiaster’s text is in any case similar to that of the Frede’s I-recension, which is also close to the final Vulgate version. See Alexander Souter, The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul: A Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927), 60–62. 30 Holloway, “Thanks,” 432. 27

250

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

none of the literary parallels Holloway cites as similar examples offer an adequate comparison with Paul’s thanksgiving period here. For in the passages he examines, none of the Stoic, Epicurean, and Middle Platonic philosophers he draws insight from, thanks the gods for their remembrance of a third party. Rather, they simply express the joy and comfort they derived from reminiscing about former intellectual conversations and deliberations with family members, friends, and disciples, while experiencing distressful circumstances.31 Schubert’s translation of the beginning of the thanksgiving period should therefore prevail: “I thank God for every (actual) expression of your remembrance of me.”32 Or, to render more literally the idea conveyed by the articular adjective πάσῃ τῇ, one might say: I thank God for your whole remembrance (of me).33 As we shall see, this brief mention to the Philippians’ consideration echoes 4:10 where Paul rejoices that they have revived their (practical) concern of him: ἀνεθάλετε τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐµοῦ φρονεῖν ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε.34 Schubert thus seems right to conclude that 1:3 “is an allusion, clear enough to us and unmistakable to the addressees, to the recent money gift.”35 Should this interpretation be correct, then it would strongly suggest that one of the main reasons of Paul’s letter was precisely to offer thanks for their support and partnership in the gospel (cf. 1:5), 36 which would in turn challenge the view that Paul might have been embarrassed by or ungrateful for their gesture – this interpretation certainly did not occur to some of the 31 Holloway, “Thanks,” 424–26. His consideration of vv. 4–5 as epexegetical to v. 3 is also debatable in the light of the pattern of the Pauline thanksgivings established by Schubert, whereby causative ἐπί-clauses have been shown to be dependent on the main verb εὐχαριστέω. See Schubert’s discussion on this point. Schubert, Thanksgivings, 78– 80. 32 Schubert, Thanksgivings, 74 (emphasis added). Elsewhere (p. 61), however, he translates ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ µνείᾳ ὑµῶν by “for each occasion when you remember me” (emphasis added). 33 Cf. Blass, Grammar, §47.9, p. 162; Robertson, Grammar, 772; C. J. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon (London: J. W. Parker, 1861), 3; Meyer, Philippians, 14; Vincent, Philippians, 5–6; Lightfoot, Philippians, 82. Given Paul’s free usage of the construction πᾶς ὁ + noun (cf. Rom 4:16, 15:11, 16:4, 16:26; 1 Cor 12:26, 14:33, 15:25; Gal 3:8; Phil 1:1, 4:6, 4:22; 1 Thess 4:10, 5:27; Phlm 5; cf. Eph 3:18, 21; Col 1:4, 2:9, 2:13; 2 Thess 1:4), it is questionable whether one should hold onto a hard and fast rule on this point, however. For Moule, the adjective πᾶς has the sense all or every when “it is not enclosed within the article-noun unit,” although he admits that it can mean entire on some occasions too (e.g., Matt 21:10). Moule, Idiom-Book, 93–94. 34 Cf. Hansen, Philippians, 45. 35 Schubert, Thanksgivings, 78. O’Brien concurs. O’Brien, Thanksgiving, 40. 36 Cf. Rilliet, Commentaire, 325; Garland, “Philippians 1:1–26,” 329; Peterman, Gift, 98–99; Markus A. Bockmuehl, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (BNTC; 4th ed.; London: Black, 1997), 33.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

251

earliest commentators.37 Seen from this perspective, Paul then effectively begins his letter with an outburst of gratitude (εὐχαριστῶ) and joy (µετὰ χαρᾶς) for the Philippians’ cooperation in the gospel (1:3, 5), which constitutes a good work (ἔργον ἀγαθόν) that Christ will no doubt bring to perfection (1:6, 9–11).38 Broadly considered, this ἔργον ἀγαθόν must of course refer to the divine work of grace made effective in the Philippian community (cf. 2:12–13). However, as P. T. O’Brien has rightly remarked, it should also be taken into account that “the Philippians’ co-operation with the apostle … in spreading the gospel among the Gentiles was an evident sign to Paul that this good work had indeed begun.”39 7.2.3 Structure and Significance of 1:5 Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ µου … (main verb)

µετὰ χαρᾶς τὴν δέησιν ποιούµενος (temporal participial clause)

ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ

ὑµῶν

(causal adv. phrase)

(subj. gen.)

εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κτλ.

The argument developed in the previous section leads us to another important question concerning the grammatical structure and significance of the second adverbial phrase expressing the reason of Paul’s thanksgiving, i.e., ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑµῶν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἡµέρας ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν (1:5). Commentators have been in disagreement as to the syntactical position and grammatical function of this ἐπί- phrase, some relating it to the 37 Theodore of Mopsuestia, Pauli commentarii, 251: et multas illis refert gratias pro quibus dederunt, (i.e., and he gives many thanks to them for that which they had given); Ambrosiaster, ad Phil. 4:18, p. 162: licet enim non inprobet factum, sed significat devotiores illos ante in opera hoc fuisse, tamen gratum esse et accepto ferre deo quasi sacrificium placitum. Bray translated it as follows: “He was not disapproving of their action but merely indicating that they had been more devoted in this work in the past. Nevertheless he is still grateful to them and says that what they have done is acceptable to God like a fragrant sacrifice.” Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians–Philemon (trans. and ed. G. L. Bray; Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), 79. See also Augustine, Conf. 13.26. 38 Ellicott also understands ἔργον ἀγαθόν to refer “objectively to the particular κοινωνία εἰς εὐαγγ. previously specified,” while for Lightfoot it is the “cooperation with and affection for the Apostle.” Ellicott, Philippians, 7; Lightfoot, Philippians, 84. Cf. Paul Ewald, Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper (3rd rev. and enl. ed.; Leipzig: Deichert, 1917), 50–51; Hansen, Philippians, 50. 39 O’Brien, Thanksgiving, 26. Cf. Ware, Mission, 167 (n. 14).

252

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

main verb εὐχαριστῶ,40 others considering it to be dependent on the participle ποιούµενος, or even the prepositional phrase µετὰ χαρᾶς immediately preceding it.41 Once again, it seems preferable to heed Schubert who contends that the thanksgiving of Philippians perfectly exemplifies “what we have found to be true of all εὐχαριστῶ-periods, namely, that the principal verb (εὐχαριστῶ) very definitely dominates the entire period as well as the various ideas expressed by its parts.”42 The second ἐπί- phrase may thus be considered to function epexegetically vis-à-vis the first ἐπί- phrase of 1:3 and to introduce the actual reason for Paul’s thanksgiving, that is, the Philippians’ κοινωνίᾳ εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. While some might disagree with this exegetical decision, it is worth observing that, at any rate, there is not a very stark semantic contrast between the phrases εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ µου and µετὰ χαρᾶς τὴν δέησιν ποιούµενος. Whether Paul thanks God or prays (to God) with joy for their κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, the fact remains that Paul has a κοινωνία with the Philippians, which is what causes him to be grateful and joyful. Furthermore, it is the significance of this so-called κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον that concerns us most here. 7.2.4 Connotation of κοινωνία (εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) in 1:5 At a quick glance, scholarship hardly appears to have been divided on the question. In 1939, Schubert could already affirm with confidence: “There is no doubt that ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑµῶν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον … has causal force. All interpreters agree that it means ‘for your cooperation in the gospel’.”43 Most Bible translations in fact render the clause by partnership/ fellowship in the gospel (though German versions usually have Gemeinschaft am Evangelium).44 Many commentators, be they aware or not of J. Fleury and J.

40

Cf. Ellicott, Philippians, 5; Meyer, Philippians, 16; Eadie, Philippians, 7; Lightfoot, Philippians, 83; Vincent, Philippians, 6; L.-M. Dewailly, “La part prise à l’Évangile (Phil. 1, 5),” RB 80 (1973): 248. 41 E.g., W. M. L. de Wette, Kurze Erklärung der Briefe an die Colosser, an Philemon, an die Epheser und Philipper (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1843), 178; Holloway, “Thanks,” 428. 42 Schubert, Thanksgivings, 73. 43 Schubert, Thanksgivings, 73 (emphasis added). 44 Cf. Tyndale 1534, KJV 1611, RSV, ASV, NKJ, NIV, ESV, Münchener Neues Testament, Neue Luther Bibel, Schlachter Bibel 2000. The Elberfelder Bibel and the Zürcher Bibel 2008 render eurer Teilnahme/Anteilnahme am Evangelium or (dass) ihr am Evangelium teilhabt, while French versions, such as the Bible de Jérusalem or the Nouvelle Edition Genève, emphasise the idea of participation (i.e., la part que vous avez prise à l’Évangile). The Vulgate and most Vetus Latina texts have the reading communicatio, although the variant societas is also found. See Frede, Philippenses, 54.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

253

P. Sampley’s works, also hold that (co-)partnership,45 (active) cooperation/ Mitarbeit,46 or participation/Teilnahme (in Paul’s evangelistic work),47 is the dominant idea here, even though many others speak in more general terms of fellowship,48 amitié,49 (political) fellowship/partnership,50 community/Gemeinschaft (of Christ),51 union/communion (of faith in the gospel),52 45 E.g., G. B. Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon) in the Revised Standard Version (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 107; Hawthorne, Philippians (1983), 16–17; F. F. Bruce, Philippians (NIBCNT; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989), 31–33; Capper, “Dispute,” 206; Bockmuehl, Philippians, 60; Peterman, Gift, 99–103; Fee, Philippians, 73–74, 81–85; Moisés Silva, Philippians (2nd ed.; BECNT; Grand Rapid: Baker Academic, 2005), 44; Hansen, Philippians, 32–35, 47– 48. 46 E.g., Cornelius a Lapide, Pauli epistolas, 557 (see below); Lightfoot, Philippians, 83; Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 12, 45; Bori, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ, 97; Ralph P. Martin, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC; 2nd rev. ed.; Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1987), 49; O’Brien, Philippians, 61–63; Berry, “Friendship,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 118. Barth understands κοινωνία to signify “Teilnahme am Evangelium,” which in concrete terms refers not only to their Geldspende but also to their “tätige Mitarbeit … bei der Verkündigung des Evangeliums.” Barth, Erklärungen, 8. Cf. Müller, Philipper, 40–41. 47 E.g., Théodore de Bèze, Iesu Christi D. N. Nouum testamentum, siue, Nouum fœdus: cuius Græco textui respondent interpretationes duæ: vna, vetus: altera, noua, Theodori Bezæ, diligenter ab eo recognita (Genève: Henricus Stephanus, 1565), 405; Grotius, Annotationes, 76; Wette, Erklärung, 178; Ewald, Philipper, 49–50; D. Wilhelm Michaelis, Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper (THKNT 11; Leipzig: Deichert, 1935), 13; Pierre Bonnard, L’épître de Saint Paul aux Philippiens (Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1950), 16; Bruce, Philippians, 31; Fee, Philippians, 73–74, 81–85 (Fee oscillates between participation and partnership); Jean-Noël Aletti, Saint Paul, Épître aux Philippiens: Introduction, traduction et commentaire (EBib 55; Paris: Gabalda, 2005), 45. 48 E.g., Eadie, Philippians, 8–10; Ellicott, Philippians, 4–5; Vincent, Philippians, 6– 7; Plummer, Philippians, 9; Edward Hastings, The Epistle to the Philippians (Aberdeen: Speaker’s Bible Office, 1930), 11–16; William A. Hendriksen, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1962), 51–53. 49 E.g., Edart, Philippiens, 60–61, 111–12. 50 E.g., Geoffrion, Philippians, 26, 95–96. 51 E.g., Hainz, Koinonia, 89–95; Hansen, Philippians, 32–33, 48. Meyer is particularly poetical, calling this κοινωνία the “gemeinsame brüderliche Zusammenhalten (Act. 2, 42),” whose purpose was the “Förderung” and “Wirksamkeit” of the gospel. Heinrich A. W. Meyer, Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch über die Briefe Pauli an die Philipper, Kolosser und an Philemon (KEK 9.4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1874), 14. Calvin is also willing to consider that “la communion de l’Evangile” could relate to “la compagnie et société commune des saints.” Calvin, Philippiens, 251. 52 Cornelius sums this interpretation well: Communicatio haec Primo, est participatio Euangelii, id est, fidei, & doctrinae Euangelicae. Cornelius a Lapide, Pauli epistolas, 557. Aquinas suggests a similar interpretation: Dicit ergo, Super communicatione, scilicet, qua communicatis doctrinae Euangelii, credendo & opere implendo. Aquinas, Commentaria, 448. Cf. Ambrosiaster, ad Phil. 1:5, p. 131 (quod participes facti sint evangelii, sicut Petrus apostolus inter cetera dicens: ut sitis, inquit, consortes divinae

254

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

sharing/financial generosity (by implication),53 faith in the gospel,54 or, somehow, all of the above (κοινωνία being understood as encompassing the Philippians’ cooperation through their material assistance, as well as their deep human and spiritual communion with Paul and Christ in the gospel).55 As is made clear from this summary of interpretations, many commentators have been open to the idea that, in 1:5, κοινωνία could evoke more specifically the Philippians’ cooperation or partnership in Paul’s evangelistic work, which, presumably, involved some financial participation. John Chrysostom was probably one of the first interpreters to recognise this point and to reflect upon the practical aspect of Paul’s κοινωνία in his homily on 1:1–7.56 Chrysostom indeed understood that the Philippians had taken part unwaveringly (οὐ νῦν µόνον … ἀλλ’ ἀεὶ, ll. 27–28) in Paul’s kerygmatic mission (συγκοινωνοῦντές µου τῷ κηρύγµατι, l. 16), by not only sharing in his afflictions (ἐκοινώνουν αὐτῷ τῶν θλίψεων, ll. 24–25) and victories (αὐτῷ τῶν στεφάνων, ll. 31), but also by sending assistants (ὑπηρετούµενοι, l. 26) to attend to his needs.57 Seizing the rhetorical potential of this verse, he then vigorously exhorted his audience to follow in the footsteps of the Philippians, and to support financially those in their own community who had dedicated their lives to the gospel in a similar fash-

naturae); Theodore of Mopsuestia, Pauli commentarii, 201; Calvin, Philippiens, 251; Musculus, Philippenses, 3–4; Daillé, Exposition, 20–30; Rilliet, Commentaire, 106. 53 E.g., Michael, Philippians, 11–12; Martin, Philippians, 62 (somewhat inconsistent with p. 49); Witherington III, Friendship, 37–38; Reumann, Philippians, 106–107; Baumert, Koinonein, 200–201, 525; Briones, Financial Policy, 63 (“a mutual sharing in gospel advancement, grace, suffering, and finances; a strange combination, to say the least”). 54 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ, 1:5 (PG 82.651, ll. 3–4): Κοινωνίαν δὲ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου τὴν πίστιν ἐκάλεσε. Theodoret’s interpretation is followed by Seesemann (p. 79): “Ich möchte daher auch das ‘Anteilhaben am Evangelium’ in diesem Sinn verstehen. Am kürzesten und treffendsten hat Theodoret das zum Ausdruck gebracht: Κοινωνίαν δὲ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου τὴν πίστιν ἐκάλεσε. Besser kann man den Gedanken des Paulus nicht wiedergeben.” Seesemann was no doubt motivated by a theological agenda here again (p. 74): “Paulus dankt niemals für subjektive Leistungen der angeredeten Christen, sondern er dankt stets für objektive Wirkungen Gottes an ihnen.” Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 74, 79. See also Hauck, TDNT 3:805, s.v. κοινωνία: “the thanksgiving ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑµῶν … refers to the inward and undisturbed (ἀπὸ – νῦν) participation of the Philippians in the saving message of Christ.” Cf. Dibelius, Philipper, 62–63; Panikulam, Koinōnia, 85. 55 Dewailly, “La part prise”. 56 Marius Victorinus might have made pertinent remarks on the passage, but the section of his commentary on 1:1–14 has been lost unfortunately. See Victorinus, Commentarii, vi. 57 He is of course paraphrasing Paul in this passage. John Chrysostom, Hom. Phil. 1 (PG 62.184).

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

255

ion.58 For, he argued, this corresponded to Paul’s idea of κοινωνία: Καὶ τοῦτό φησιν ὁ Παῦλος κοινωνίαν. Κοινωνοῦσιν ἡµῖν, φησὶν, ἐν τοῖς σαρκικοῖς, κοινωνοῦµεν αὐτοῖς ἐν τοῖς πνευµατικοῖς.59 Similarly, the seventeenthcentury Flemish Jesuit scholar, Cornelius a Lapide, came to view the Philippians’ communicatio in Evangelio as a proactive cooperatio and participatio in Paul’s mission that had practical ramifications, as his paraphrase of the passage illustrates: … quod communicetis meis laboribus … quod mihi collaboretis … me omni ope & opera adiuuetis, dum mittitis Epaphroditus vestru Episcopum ad me, dum per eum mihi alimoniam & munera defertis.60 This understanding has been somewhat shared by a number of more recent commentators. However, even if they accept the sense partnership (or cooperation) for κοινωνία here, and consent that the verse alludes to the Philippians’ material and/or financial support,61 hardly any of them, Fleury and Sampley excepted, have investigated further the possible socio-economic implications of such a partnership. E. J. Goodspeed, for example, merely plays with the idea that the Philippians “have been his business 58

Ibid. (PG 62.184, ll. 46–51): ἔνεστι καὶ σοὶ … τῶν ἐπὶ τούτοις ἀποκειµένων αὐτῷ µισθῶν κοινωνῆσαι. Πῶς; Ἂν θεραπεύσῃς αὐτὸν καὶ λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ, ἂν παρακαλέσῃς καὶ διὰ τοῦ χορηγεῖν τὰ ἀναγκαῖα, καὶ διὰ τοῦ διακονεῖσθαι πᾶσαν διακονίαν (i.e., it is possible to you also … to have a share of the rewards laid out for him for these things. How? If you should attend to him both in word and deed, if you should also encourage [him] by supplying for [his] necessities, and by ministering [to him] through all [kinds of] service). He pursues with similar exhortations right until his section on 1:6, and concludes by quoting Jesus’ instruction to use wealth to make friends in his parable of the dishonest oikonomos (cf. Luke 16:9): Τοῦτο καὶ ὁ Χριστός φησι· Ποιήσατε ὑµῖν φίλους ἐκ τοῦ µαµωνᾶ τῆς ἀδικίας, ἵνα δέξωνται ὑµᾶς εἰς τὰς αἰωνίους αὑτῶν σκηνάς (i.e., this is what Christ says: make yourselves friends by means of the unrighteous wealth, so that they may receive you in their eternal dwellings). Ibid. (PG 62.184, ll. 21–24). He becomes all the more pressing towards the end of his homily. See idib. (PG 62.187–89). 59 I.e., and this is what Paul means by κοινωνία. They share with us, he says, in carnal things, (while) we share with them in spiritual things. John Chrysostom, Hom. Phil. 1 (PG 62.185, ll. 4–6). 60 I.e., … in order that you may share in my labours … in order that you may collaborate with me … provide me with all assistance and services, when you send your episcopus Epaphroditus to me, when you bring me sustenance and gifts. Cornelius a Lapide, Pauli epistolas, 557. Commenting on 1:5, he further explains: Secundo & melius, communicatio haec in Euangelio, id est, in praedicatione & propagatione Euangelii, est cooperatio & participatio laborum & passionum, quas Paulus & Apostoli pro hac Euangelii praeparatione vel sustinebant, vel suscipiebant, in quibus communicabant & particabant Philippenses (i.e., second and better, this participation in the gospel, i.e., in the preaching and propagation of the gospel, is the cooperation and participation in the works and sufferings, which Paul and the apostles both endured and received for the preparation of the gospel, in which the Philippians participated and shared). Ibid. 61 Even a theologian such as K. Barth was ready to admit the practical aspect to the Philippians’ Teilnahme am Evangelium. See Barth, Erklärungen, 8–9.

256

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

partners in this gospel enterprise,” but does not pursue the argument to its logical conclusion.62 Recognising “‘some points of overlaps’ between Paul’s use of κοινωνία and the Roman partnership of societas,”63 G. W. Hansen has likewise suggested that “[t]he koinōnia of Paul and the Philippians in the work of proclaiming the gospel bears striking resemblance to business partnerships in Paul’s day.”64 Yet, ultimately, he takes side with the majority of commentators who favour a more figurative understanding of the passage, concluding that he made “use of the concept of societas … as a metaphor to describe his relationship with the Philippians.65 What this succinct and selective overview of the history of interpretation highlights is that there is no sharply defined consensus on the significance of the verse.66 It also illustrates that, generally speaking, exegetes have lacked (lexical) precision in their appreciation of the cognate κοινωνία and have not fully explored its socio-economic dimension. This may be partly due to the fact that the term has not always been well defined in standard lexica, except perhaps in Louw-Nida and BDAG.67 The latter, for instance, initially proposes the following, rather suitable, definition under which Philippians 1:5 is found: “close association involving mutual interests and sharing, association, communion, fellowship, close relationship”68 – note the unnecessary glosses appended to the definition, relics of the 1957 BAG and 1979 BAGD editions most likely. 69 Yet, in the very same 62

Goodspeed, Introduction, 93–94. Hansen, “Transformation,” 184. 64 Hansen, Philippians, 49. 65 Hansen, “Transformation,” 189. Datiri is equally irresolute as he rejects Sampley’s understanding, yet accepts the idea that a partnership of some kind could have been established between Paul and the Philippians: “Indeed, he regarded them as partners with him in his work. In fact, it seems there was a definite agreement between the apostle and this congregation about sharing in Paul’s apostolic work.” Datiri, “Finances,” 183. Cf. ibid., 165–66. 66 In 1933, Seesemann had in fact remarked: “Auch zu Phil 15 herrscht keine Einigkeit über die Bedeutung des Begriffs κοινωνία.” Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 74. 67 LSJ is once again a case in point as it provides a dizzying list of glosses. Words such as communion, association, partnership, co-education, human society, fellowship, joint-ownership, marriage, holy communion, sexual intercourse, charitable contribution, alms, charitable disposition, are all presented as applicable translation equivalents (depending on the context, no doubt). See LSJ, s.v. κοινωνία. 68 BDAG, s.v. κοινωνία. Louw-Nida gives a similar definition: “an association involving close mutual relations and involvement.” L&N, s.v. κοινωνία 34.5. 69 Three more lexical senses are added to the entry, which typically illustrates Lee’s observation that, in BDAG, “all the entries have gathered too much information of too many different types, [and] of varying degrees of reliability and usefulness.” Lee, History, 170. See BDAG, s.v. κοινωνία: “2. attitude of good will that manifests an interest in a close relationship, generosity, fellow-feeling, altruism” (e.g., 2 Cor 9:13; Heb 13:16; Phil 2:1); “3. abstr. for concr. sign of fellowship, proof of brotherly unity, even gift, con63

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

257

entry, ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑµῶν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον is then rendered by the odd phrase “close relationship w. the gospel”70 – a translation most likely borrowed from H. Seesemann.71 One is simply puzzled as to what this is supposed to mean. Can anyone actually have a close relationship with something as abstract as the gospel? To render κοινωνία by fellowship or Gemeinschaft is hardly more helpful, for these words are so vague that they could mean just about anything. M. R. Vincent’s definition is a case in point as he defines fellowship as “[a] relation between individuals which involves common and mutual interest and participation in a common object,” a definition that could well be applied to partnership.72 It is in fact probably best to avoid generic words such as fellowship/Gemeinschaft, or even association (in the sense of community),73 to translate κοινωνία here, since they evoke, to the modern ear at least, a vague notion of togetherness, and by extension, of social and ecclesial community, if not of spiritual communion, notions which seem to be absent from the verse.74 Furthermore, it does not accord very well with the subjective genitive ὑµῶν75 and “the critical qualifying phrase” εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (not τοῦ εὐαγγελίου)76 ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἡµέρας ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν, tribution” (e.g., Lev 5:21; Rom 15:26; 1 Cor 10:16); “4. participation, sharing τινός in someth.” (e.g., Phlm 6; Phil 3:10; 2 Cor 8:4; 1 Cor 1:9; 2 Cor 13:13; 1 Cor 10:16). Note in particular the unsuitability of some of the biblical examples therein cited (e.g., Lev 5:21; Rom 15:26; 1 Cor 10:16; 2 Cor 9:13; Phil 2:1; Heb 13:16). 70 BDAG, s.v. κοινωνία 1. 71 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 74–75: “so muß der Ausdruck κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ihr ‘Anteilhaben am Evangelium’ = ihre ‘enge Beziehung zum Evangelium’ bedeuten.” Cf. Walter Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1988), s.v. κοινωνία: “ἡ κ. εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον d. enge Beziehung zum Evangelium Phil 1 5” (italics original). 72 Vincent, Philippians, 6–7. In an essay written long before his commentary on Philippians, O’Brien was no more precise in his use of the terms fellowship, partnership, cooperation, or even generosity (p. 14), which he employs alternatively to refer to Paul’s κοινωνία with the Philippians. See Peter T. O’Brien, “The Fellowship Theme in Philippians,” RTR 37 (1978): 9–18. Marshall is equally vague. See I. Howard Marshall, The Epistle to the Philippians (Epworth commentaries; London: Epworth, 1992), 9. 73 One could use the word association, provided one intends to mean “[t]he action of combining together for a common purpose” and not a corporate entity. Given that the distinction is in general not immediately obvious, it may be best to avoid the term here. Cf. OED3, s.v. association. Accessed January 2013. Online: http://www.oed.com/view/ Entry/11981. 74 Campbell has likewise challenged the assumption that “‘fellowship’ is always the important idea expressed by κοινωνεῖν and its cognates.” Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 369. 75 This is the only certain subjective genitive used with κοινωνία in the NT, Campbell assures. Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 371. 76 Seesemann (and Campbell somewhat) argued that Paul opted for a prepositional phrase here to avoid the confusion of two successive genitive (i.e., ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑµῶν

258

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

which, as G. W. Peterman and C. J. Ellicott have rightly suggested, identifies the sphere of application of this κοινωνία (note the telic force of εἰς), rather than its “kind” or “character,”77 and marks the “object toward which the κοινωνία [is] directed.”78 The difficulty in grasping the sense of κοινωνία in this verse is no doubt largely due to the fact that we are dealing with a versatile and slippery word that, pragmatically speaking (i.e., as regards its use in context), can assume a broad range of semantic nuances. As we have illustrated in our philological survey, the term can actually acquire a more specific connotation when used in a certain context and/or in collocation with particular words. For example, the expression κοινωνία πρὸς βίου/γάµου commonly found in papyri (primarily in marriage contracts and divorce settlements) designates, evidently enough, the marital union of a husband and a wife. In public edicts, the term can refer to some political alliance (or community), while in cultic decrees it often denotes participation in religious activities and festivals (κ. τῶν ἀγώνων), and the partaking of the sacrifices therein (κ. τῶν ἱερῶν/θυσιῶν). More significantly, we have uncovered that in a large number of documents, κοινωνία either describes the joint-ownership or the joint-lease of assets on the basis of a mutual agreement (ἀπὸ/ κατὰ/ ἐπὶ κοινωνίαν/ᾷ/ας), or even a partnership in some sort of enterprise.79 To a certain extent, this semantic malleability is also observed throughout the letters of Paul, who is himself quite flexible in his use of the term. In Philippians alone, he makes reference to a κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (1:5), a κοινωνία πνεύµατος (2:1), and a κοινωνία παθηµάτων (τοῦ Χριστοῦ; 3:10). Elsewhere, he applies the term to the Jerusalem collection, which he describes as a κοινωνία εἰς τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῶν ἁγίων τῶν ἐν Ἰερουσαλήµ (Rom 15:26) and a κοινωνία τῆς διακονίας τῆς εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους (2 Cor 8:4; cf. 2 Cor 9:13). In Galatians 2:9, he alludes to the δεξιὰς κοινωνίας that James and Peter gave him in support of his mission to the Gentiles, while in Philemon 6 he gives thanks for the effective κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς of his κοινωνός (cf. Phlm 17). On other occasions, he employs the word to describe more theological realities, evoking a κοινωνία τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and τοῦ εὐαγγελίου/τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ὑµῶν). See Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 75; Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 371–72. However, Paul hardly appears to be concerned with such concatenation usually. See for instance Phlm 6 (ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου), 1 Thess 1:3 (µνηµονεύοντες ὑµῶν τοῦ ἔργου τῆς πίστεως καὶ τοῦ κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης καὶ τῆς ὑποµονῆς τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), or Rom 8:21 (ἡ κτίσις ἐλευθερωθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ). Cf. Robertson, Grammar, 503. 77 Peterman, Gift, 100–101. 78 Ellicott, Philippians, 5. Cf. Baumert, Koinonein, 201–202. 79 Cf. IG VII 2225 (170 B.C.); P.Bour. 13 (A.D. 98); P.Flor. III 370 (A.D. 132); P.Princ. II 36 (A.D. 195–197); P.Lond. V 1795 (A.D. VI).

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

259

τοῦ αἵµατος τοῦ Χριστοῦ (1 Cor 1:9, 10:16), a κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος (2 Cor 13:13), or the impossible κοινωνία between light and darkness (ἢ τίς κοινωνία φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος; 2 Cor 6:14) – if one is willing to view this passage as authentically Pauline.80 These examples further illustrate, if one needed convincing, that syntagmatics and context are critical to a proper interpretation of the term in its various pragmatic manifestations. They also highlight the necessity to resist the temptation of reading the various occurrences of κοινωνία in Paul’s letters through one uniform lexical lens. It is at this stage that our previous examination of the documentary sources proves to be most useful, as it provides us with a range of possibilities and allows us to determine more precisely the most likely connotation of the term in 1:5. For obvious reasons, in context, it cannot refer to marital union, political alliance (or community), joint-participation in cultic activities, or the ownership or lease of assets in common. The understanding of κοινωνία as religious association/community or spiritual communion is equally inappropriate and betrays a certain theological predisposition to conceive of the cognate as distinctly religious (in Paul’s letters especially), which, as we have pointed out earlier, poses some problems. There remains therefore only one possible alternative, even though Philippians is neither a commercial nor a legal document: it expresses the idea of cooperation or partnership, i.e., of mutual involvement in a common action or enterprise that is centred on a common purpose, in this case, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (i.e., the proclamation of the gospel; cf. 1:7: ἡ ἀπολογία καὶ ἡ βεβαίωσις τοῦ εὐαγγελίου).81 This certainly seems to be the semantic option which best accords with the prepositional phrase characterising this κοινωνία (i.e., εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἡµέρας ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν), and which best accounts for the economic overtones of 4:15–20 where a κοινων- cognate reappears at a crucial point (ἐκοινώνησεν, 4:15). Furthermore, it agrees quite well with the overall context and circumstance of the letter, one of whose objectives was to acknowledge the Philippians’ leitourgia, a term

80 Many consider 6:14–7:1 to be an interpolation. See for instance C. F. Georg Heinrici, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (KEK 6; 8th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 236–39; Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief, 18–20; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Qumrân and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Cor 6,14–7,1,” CBQ 23 (1961): 271–80; Rudolf Bultmann, The Second Letter to the Corinthians (trans. R. A. Harrisville; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), 175; Hans Dieter Betz, “2 Cor 6:14–7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment?” JBL 92.1 (1973): 88–108; Vielhauer, Geschichte, 151; Koester, History, 54; Welborn, Enmity, xix–xxviii. 81 Cf. Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 44; O’Brien, Philippians, 62; Dickson, MissionCommitment, 124; Ware, Mission, 165–67.

260

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

that not only has a strong cultic connotation but which, in a civic context, often denotes a compulsory act of service.82 To some, this understanding may not be as original as it appears, and, as we have noted earlier, several commentators would probably concur. However, as the following pages will soon make clear, we will argue in favour of a much more decisive interpretation, one which, we believe, affords a better explanation for Paul’s use of technical economic language in 4:15–20, and which is better suited to a first-century Graeco-Roman context. 7.2.5 The Philippians as Paul’s συγκοινωνοὶ τῆς χάριτος (1:7) Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ µου

…

(main verb) Καθώς

ἐστιν

(causal conjunction)

(main verb)

διὰ τὸ ἔχειν (causal inf. clause)

δίκαιον

µε (subject of inf.)

ἐµοὶ τοῦτο φρονεῖν ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑµῶν (subject)

ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ (Paul’s καρδία)

ἔν τε τοῖς δεσµοῖς µου

ὑµᾶς (direct object of inf.)

(apposition)

καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου

συγκοινωνούς µου τῆς χάριτος

πάντας ὑµᾶς ὄντας

Our understanding of κοινωνία in 1:5 is further confirmed by Paul’s designation of the Philippians, as a whole (πάντας ὑµᾶς), as his συγκοινωνοὶ τῆς χάριτος in his legal defence and confirmation of the gospel in 1:7 (ἐν τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου). The basic lexical sense of the substantive συγκοινωνός poses little difficulty here, despite the presence of 82

Briones perceives this well, although he adduces no primary evidence to illustrate his claim. Cf. Briones, Financial Policy, 102–103. A classic study of civic liturgies in Egypt during the Ptolemaic and Roman eras remains Oertel, Liturgie. Cf. J. Oehler, “Leiturgie,” PW[1] 4:1871–79.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

261

the prefix συν- which likely functions as an intensifying marker.83 In essence, the cognate (συγ)κοινωνός denotes “one who has something in common with someone else,” and thus often has the sense associate or partner in a particular enterprise (especially when no partitive genitive is included),84 a sense which, as our philological survey has highlighted, is frequently observed in documentary sources. The question is whether συγκοινωνός bears a similar connotation in this verse, as P. J. T. Endenburg and H. Seesemann have intimated, and thus further emphasises the Philippians’ cooperative role as Paul’s close associates in his evangelistic mission.85 At first glance, it would appear that this sense does not apply to the term here, since it is followed by the partitive genitive τῆς χάριτος, which seems to indicate that which is shared between Paul and the Philippians (though one might have expected the personal pronoun µοι instead of µου).86 Many commentators have therefore understood the phrase συγκοινωνούς µου τῆς χάριτος as evoking the Philippians participation in, or partaking of, the divine grace granted to Paul in the gospel,87 although others have preferred to see in χάρις a more concrete reference to Paul’s “apostolic commission,”88 or even to his suffering for Christ (through persecutions and martyrdom).89 Yet the exact connotation of χάρις is not entirely clear here (the definite article ἡ preceding it notwithstanding),90 inasmuch as it is not qualified by genitives such as τοῦ θεοῦ (cf. Rom 5:15) or (τοῦ κυρίου) Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (cf. 2 Cor 13:13). A theological interpretation need not be stressed in any case. As the work of J. R. Harrison has amply demonstrated, χάρις in Paul is best understood against the background of Graeco-Roman benefaction, 83 Cf. Robertson Grammar, 163–68; Moulton, Grammar, 112–15; Baumert, Koinonein, 109. 84 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 353 (emphasis added). Cf. L&N, s.v. συγκοινωνός; BDAG, s.v. συγκοινωνός; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 52; Endenburg, Koinoonia, 26; Baumert, Koinonein, 37. 85 Endenburg, Koinoonia, 105; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 52. See also Baumert, Koinonein, 109–110. 86 Cf. Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 354; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 19. It is not entirely clear whether µου should be understood as qualifying συγκοινωνούς or τῆς χάριτος, as is suggested by a textual variant (see below). The reading µοι τῆς χάριτος was known to Theophylact of Ohrid. Cf. Wettstein, NTG 2:262–63; Tischendorf, NTG 2:705. 87 E.g., Plummer, Philippians, 12; Vincent, Philippians-Philemon, 9; Lightfoot, Philippians, 85; Beare, Philippians, 53–54; Collange, Philippians, 46; O’Brien, Philippians, 70; BDAG, s.v. συγκοινωνός. 88 Hawthorne, Philippians (2004), 27. Cf. Moule, Philippians, 15. 89 Lohmeyer, Philipper, 25–27. Cf. Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 49; Harrison, Paul’s Language, 247. 90 O’Brien, for instances, argues that “[t]he article (τῆς) before ‘grace’ (χάριτος) shows it is the grace of God that is in view.” O’Brien, Philippians, 70.

262

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

that is, as referring to the favour, benefaction, and munificence of God mediated through Christ in the gospel.91 In fact, this connotation would seem to accord better with the immediate context and with Paul’s mention of his ἀπολογία (legal defence) and βεβαίωσις (confirmation) of the εὐαγγέλιον.92 As D. E. Briones has rightly observed, “it is primarily his ministry that 1:7 has in view,” or, more precisely, its vindication.93 This interpretation also allows for a slightly more coherent reading of the whole thanksgiving period. Starting with the causal conjunction καθώς in 1:7,94 Paul then further elaborates on the reason for his gratitude. It is right for him to be grateful for their κοινωνία, he asserts, for he holds them dear in his heart: καθώς ἐστιν δίκαιον ἐµοὶ τοῦτο φρονεῖν ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑµῶν διὰ τὸ ἔχειν µε ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑµᾶς.95 For they have stood alongside him both in his imprisonment (ἐν τοῖς δεσµοῖς µου), and in his defence and confirmation of the gospel (ἐν τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου), by their thoughts, prayers, and material assistance, and have thereby fulfilled their supportive role as his faithful associates (συγκοινωνοί) in his mission. This interpretation might be further confirmed by a textual variant which suggests that, originally, the verse may have been meant and understood rather differently from how it is now commonly understood. As B. Nongbri has recently brought to light, the variant has been altogether neglected by commentators, and has in fact been omitted from NA27 and NA28, although it was known to J. J. Wettstein (and C. Tischendorf).96 The 91

Harrison, Paul’s Language. Cf. LSJ, s.v. ἀπολογία, βεβαίωσις; BDAG, s.v. ἀπολογία, βεβαίωσις; MM, s.v. βεβαίωσις; Deissmann, BS, 107–109. 93 Briones, Financial Policy, 81. 94 Such καθώς clauses are a regular feature of Pauline thanksgivings. See Schubert, Thanksgivings, 31. Cf. BDAG, s.v., καθώς 3; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 674. 95 The significance of the phrase διὰ τὸ ἔχειν µε ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑµᾶς is not straightforward (even in the absence of textual variants), as it is not entirely sure which of µε or ὑµᾶς is meant to be the subject of the infinitive ἔχειν, and which is supposed to be its direct object. Nor is it completely clear whose χαρδία is meant, whether it is Paul’s or that of the congregation as a whole (although he might have written ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις instead) – no variant ὑµῶν or vestri/vestrum is recorded. While Paul may have deliberated intended the ambiguity, the order of the pronouns seems to suggest that the traditional translation because I have/hold you in my heart should be retained. See Tyndale 1534, KJV 1611, RSV, ASV, NKJ, NIV, ESV. Cf. 1598 Clementine Vulgate (quod habeam in corde vos), Münchener Neues Testament, Neue Luther Bibel, Schlachter Bibel 2000, Zürcher Bibel 2008, Bible de Jérusalem, Nouvelle Edition Genève. Cf. Ellicott, Philippians, 8; Meyer, Philippians, 20. But see Hawthorne, Philippians (2004), 26–27. 96 Brent Nongbri, “Two Neglected Textual Variants in Philippians 1,” JBL 128.4 (2009): 803–808. Cf. Wettstein, NTG 2:280; Tischendorf, NTG 2:705. 92

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

263

Swiss scholar had indeed noticed that in four bilingual codices, i.e., Claromontanus (A.D. VI), Sangermanensis (early A.D. IX), Boernerianus (A.D. IX), and Augiensis (A.D. IX), the personal pronoun µου is placed right after τῆς χάριτος. Whilst Nongbri dismissed the idea that these four witnesses, which probably record a fourth-century reading,97 should be given precedence over the “combined support” of more authoritative manuscripts from A.D. III–V that have the commonly accepted reading (i.e., 46 , Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus), he posited that the variant could well represent “an early clarification of the verse and thus could provide evidence for how some early readers of the ambiguous συγκοινωνούς µου τῆς χάριτος understood that phrase.”98 Nongbri further observed that in the fifth-century Latin translation of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s commentary on Philippians, which preserves some Greek excerpts, the phrase συγκοινωνοὺς δὲ µου τῆς χάριτος is unambiguously rendered as comparticipes gratiae mea (whilst, oddly enough, the Latin lemma for this verse in the commentary has comparticipes gratiae omnes uos esse).99 He also pointed out that verse 4:14 (καλῶς ἐποιήσατε συγκοινωνήσαντές µου τῇ θλίψει), wherein the possessive pronoun µου appears to qualify the substantive θλῖψις, might provide additional insight on how the original audience(s) might have understood 1:7, that is, “as emphasizing that it is by virtue of their support of Paul during his bondage that they had become partakers of the benefaction that Paul himself had originally received.”100 Based on the evidence assembled, Nongbri thus concluded that some of the early readers (or listeners) may have conceived of Paul as “a broker of divine benefaction,” which, he thought, “would fit comfortably in the context of ancient Greek and Roman conventions of friendship and patronage.”101 Although we will never know whether this is how Paul envisaged his sentence to be understood, this 97 As Nongbri explains (drawing on P. Corssen): “when the Greek text of Claromontanus is in agreement with that of Boernerianus and Augiensis, the reading likely goes back to the fourth-century predecessor from which all three texts are ultimately derived.” Nongbri, “Variants,” 805. 98 Nongbri, “Variants,” 805 (italics original). 99 Later, the Vulgate would settle for gaudii mei omnes vos esse, perhaps mistaking χάριτος for χαρᾶς. Cf. Nongbri, “Variants,” 806. A number of Vetus Latina variants exist. See Frede, Philippenses, 57. 100 Nongbri, “Variants,” 806. Cf. Briones, Financial Policy, 80–81. The syntax of 4:14 is slightly different from that of 1:7, however. In 4:14, the personal pronoun µου is preceded by the adverbial participle συγκοινωνήσαντές. There is therefore no ambiguity. 101 Nongbri, “Variants,” 808. This understanding is relayed by Briones, Financial Policy, 82–83. In support of this interpretation, Nongbri appealed to additional textual variants in 1:11 in witnesses as important as 46 (i.e., εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον µοι/ἐµοί), which, according to him, further reinforce the idea that Paul functioned as a broker of divine favour (pp. 807–808).

264

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

reading provides a suggestive alternative to a more theologically-oriented interpretation, one which further highlights the significant and proactive role the Philippians played in the completion of Paul’s mission. Read in this light, Paul might thus be perceived as conveying his heartfelt appreciation to the Philippians for their assistance in his mediatory role as a herald of the χάρις of God, i.e., the gospel, rather than as alluding to their jointpartaking of the divine gift. 7.2.6 Concluding Remarks on Paul’s Ultimate Concern for the προκοπὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (1:12) It may now be better appreciated that the two causal ἐπί- phrases of 1:3 and 1:5 combine to provide Paul’s major reason for his gratitude: the Philippians’ faithful collaboration in his evangelistic work, which, he is quick to stress, continues to make significant progress despite his present constraints. The question of the expansion of the gospel certainly remains at the forefront of his mind as he shifts from his opening thanksgiving to the main body of the letter. For the issue he immediately turns to is that of the advance of the gospel (προκοπὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 1:12), concerning which he is eager to reassure the Philippians.102 Despite his current hardships (1:12–18), his confinement to a praetorium (τῷ πραιτωρίῳ, 1:13), wherever it might have been,103 and the uncertainty of a positive dénouement (1:21– 24, 2:17), the gospel has all the more (µᾶλλον, 1:12) made an impact, so much so that they need not worry about it being hindered. Much to the contrary, he insists, Christ is being preached effectively through his chains (1:13), and through other believers (1:14–18), and will ultimately be proclaimed through his death as well (1:20). Therefore, they should not think their efforts, their partnership in the gospel, to have been in vain. Their support of his mission, their investment as it were, is still bearing fruit (καρπός, 1:22; cf. 1:11). Yet, Paul is as much concerned about the προκοπή of the gospel in his current location as he is anxious about the προκοπή of the gospel in their midst (τὴν ὑµῶν προκοπὴν καὶ χαρὰν τῆς πίστεως, 1:25), which motivates the paraenetic discourse of the rest of his letter with its exhortations to continue to stand united in the faith as imitators of Christ, resisting discord, self-conceit, and erroneous teaching (1:27–2:18, 3:1–4:9). Taking heed to his directives will thus ensure that the

102

Cf. Holloway, Consolation, 89–90; Ware, Mission, 163–99. It need not imply a location in Rome, or even Nero’s palace (contra John Chrysostom, Hom. Phil. 1 [PG 62.177]), since, by then, a praetorium generally referred to the headquarters of a provincial governor. Cf. F. Lammert, “Praetorium,” PW[1] 22.2:2535– 37; John B. Campbell, “Praetorium,” OCD3, p. 1241; BDAG, s.v. πραιτώριον; Reumann, Philippians, 171–72. 103

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

265

ἔργον ἀγαθόν begun by Christ will be brought to completion (1:6; cf. 1:10– 11), which constitutes Paul’s ultimate ground for his thanksgiving.104 7.2.7 Summary We may finally bring this section to a close. If Schubert’s thesis that the Pauline thanksgiving period functions programmatically is given serious consideration, then two important deductions may be made. Firstly, Paul’s alleged ungratefulness and coolness towards the Philippians is a misunderstanding of the opening of his letter, since his thanksgiving for their remembrance and assistance is given pride of place right from the onset. Secondly, Paul’s deep and sincere appreciation for their κοινωνία in the gospel, which was expressed through financial and/or material support, constitutes one major motive of the letter.105 We may now turn our attention to 4:10–20 and attempt to discern more accurately the rhetorical function of Paul’s businesslike discourse, as well as explore its socio-economic implications.

7.3 Paul’s Acknowledgement of the Philippians’ Contribution (4:10–20) 7.3.1. Introduction We may finally proceed to the crux of our investigation and propose a reading of 4:10–20 that pays special attention to its socio-economic resonance. As we do so, efforts will be made to integrate and apply the philological findings of our earlier chapters in order to hear Paul’s discourse from the perspective of the original author and audience. This of course does not mean that we should seek to impose a technical financial connotation at every opportunity, but we shall strive to employ the philological evidence critically. As we have already remarked, scholars have been prompt to recognise the presence of termini technici in 4:10–20. Yet, generally speaking, they have not fully appreciated the significance and pragmatic function of Paul’s language. Nor have they sufficiently explored its possible socioeconomic ramifications.106 Even a casual review of modern scholarship reveals that the majority of commentators have opted for a more figurative understanding of the passage, whereby Paul is thought to address a certain 104

Cf. Schubert, Thanksgivings, 78. Cf. Schubert, Thanksgivings, 76–77. 106 Barth, for instance, treats the final section of 4:10–23 in no more than two and a half pages. Barth, Erklärungen, 124–26. 105

266

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

sociological and/or theological reality by means of a clever financial metaphor.107 What we propose to achieve is to rescue 4:10–20 from such theologizing interpretations, and, with the help of the documentary sources, to listen to Paul’s message with ears better attuned to its economic overtones. In a subsequent chapter, we shall then reflect upon the socio-economic significance and implications of Paul’s elaborate discourse. 7.3.2 Paul’s Restored Joy (4:10–14) In 4:10, Paul finally approaches the conclusion of his epistle, having previously reassured the Philippians of the progress of his mission (1:12–20) and having encouraged them to stay true to the gospel (1:27–2:18; 3:1– 4:9). Right from the onset, he had unequivocally expressed his gratitude, exulting in thanksgiving and praise to God for their unwavering support (1:3–5). As he prepares to bring his letter to a close, he now returns to one of the main reasons that had moved him to write in the first place: the generous leitourgia brought and performed by Epaphroditus on behalf of the whole community. It is unfortunate that we do not have any precise information as to what it consisted of, Paul seeing no need to state explicitly what would have been obvious to both parties. It is permissible to think that Epaphroditus attended to Paul’s needs by bringing him food and drink on a regular basis (lest he might have starved to death).108 He may have also supplied him with new changes of clothes or warmer garments to endure the cold of the night (or winter conditions). Whatever the nature of this leitourgia may have been, what is certain is that it caused the apostle to rejoice exceedingly: Ἐχάρην δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ µεγάλως (4:10), he exclaims with a contained sigh of relief.109 With this single outburst of joy, Paul sweeps away all subsequent scholarly objections at his approval of the gift and refutes any allegation of his reservation towards it. Would it not have been disingenuous of him to pretend to delight in what he was supposed to reprove? Who but a κόλαξ or

107

See for instance Martin Ebner, Leidenslisten und Apostelbrief: Untersuchungen zu Form, Motivik und Funktion der Peristasenkataloge bei Paulus (Würzburg: Echter, 1991), 146–55; O’Brien, Philippians, 533–42; Witherington III, Friendship, 130–31; Fee, Philippians, 442–54; Bockmuehl, Philippians, 262–66; Peterman, Gift, 142–44; David J. Williams, Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 185 (n. 52); Edart, Philippiens, 292; Raymond F. Collins, The Power of Images in Paul (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2008), 48–49, 248–50; Hansen, Philippians, 322–23. 108 As we have pointed out in our general introduction, such basic necessities could often be left at the charge of the prisoners themselves. Cf. Rapske, Paul, 209–216; Wansink, Chained, 63–66. 109 Nowhere else in his letters does he express himself in such a way.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

267

ὑποκριτής would resort to such pretence?110 Only a religious fraud might thus laud their contribution as an acceptable offering to God, drawing from the liturgical language of the Septuagint (cf. 4:18).111 We would much rather think that Paul was in fact genuinely elated and relieved, and could not hide his “satisfaction” and “pride in the Philippians.”112 For, at very long last (ἤδη ποτέ),113 their concern for him (τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐµοῦ φρονεῖν) had revived (ἀνεθάλετε, 4:10). As the verb ἀναθάλλω pictorially suggests, it had sprouted again as flowers bloom in the spring season (cf. Vulgate: refloruistis).114 The tone would almost sound reproachful were he not quick to excuse them: ἠκαιρεῖσθε (4:10).115 They had lacked the opportunity, or, as some might prefer to understand, they had behaved unseasonably (ἀκαιρέοµαι thereby contrasting implicitly with εὐκαιρέω), withholding their support momentarily when they should have been assisting him.116 Having received no news from them for a while, Paul had perhaps begun to wonder whether they had not altogether forsaken him. His had been 110

The κόλαξ, i.e., the flatterer who faked frankness (παρρησία) with his friends out of self-interest, was a stereotypical character in comical, satirical, and moralistic literature (e.g., Plutarch, Mor. 48e–74e; Theophrastus, Char. 2; cf. Lucian, Par.). It was later assimilated with the parasitus in Latin literature. Paul may have been accused of the attitude in Corinth, according to Forbes. See Christopher Forbes, “Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric,” NTS 32 (1986): 2; David, Konstan, “Friendship, Frankness, and Flattery,” in Friendship, Flattery and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World (ed. J. T. Fitzgerald; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 17–18; idem, Friendship, 98–103; L. L. Welborn, “Paul’s Caricature of his Chief Rival as a Pompous Parasite in 2 Corinthians 11:20,” JSNT 32.1 (2009): 43 (n. 21). 111 Cf. Gen 8:21, Exod 29:18, 25, 41; Lev 17:4, 19:5; etc. For a more detailed study of Paul’s sacrificial language, see Baldanza, “La portata theologica”. 112 Schubert, Thanksgivings, 76. Cf. Pratscher, “Verzicht,” 288; Berry, “Friendship,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 107–24; Peterlin, Philippians, 207–208. 113 According to Robertson, the idea conveyed is more that of “culmination (‘now at last’),” than that of time. But see John Chrysostom, Hom. Phil. 15 (PG 62.287, l. 52): Τὸ, Ἤδη ποτὲ, χρόνον δηλοῦντός ἐστι µακρόν (i.e., ἤδη ποτέ signifies a long time). Interestingly, Paul uses the same particle combination to express his longing to visit the church at Rome (Rom 1:10). Cf. LSJ, s.v., ἤδη 2.; BDAG, s.v., ἤδη 2.; Robertson Grammar, 1147; Meyer, Philippians, 210–11. 114 Cf. LSJ, s.v. ἀναθάλλω; MM, s.v. ἀναθάλλω; BDAG, s.v. ἀναθάλλω. According to Nägeli, the verb pertains to more refined literary Greek. Nägeli, Wortschatz, 81. 115 As A. Rilliet once suggested, we should perhaps understand these words as conveying his sense of disappointment (rather than reproach) at the Philippians’ delay: “il nous parait que les mots ἤδη ποτέ qu’il faut traduire par enfin (τὸ ἤδη ποτὲ χρόνον δηλοῦτός ἐστι µαχρόν, dit Chrysostôme), expriment moins un reproche qu’un regret.” Rilliet, Commentaire, 326. Cf. Berry, “Friendship,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald), 109– 110. 116 Cf. LSJ, s.v., ἀκαιρεύοµαι, εὐκαιρέω; BDAG, s.v., ἀκαιρέοµαι, εὐκαιρέω; Meyer, Philippians, 214.

268

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

a desperate situation, a matter of life and death (cf. 2:17), and, at his darkest moment, crouched in a corner of his gaol, he may have been tempted to succumb to the pressure of it all (cf. 1:21–26).117 Paul was human after all, as he himself knew very well, a weak earthen vessel (ὀστράκινος σκεῦος), whose sufficiency came through Christ’s power alone (cf. 2 Cor 4:7, 12:9).118 Yet, their concern for him had not entirely faded (note the imperfect verb ἐφρονεῖτε, 4:10; cf. 1:3: ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ µνείᾳ ὑµῶν). It was only dormant and had had no occasion to express itself practically, no doubt impeded as it was by the distance separating the Philippians from the apostle, by possible travel restrictions during the winter season (if ἀναθάλλω is taken more literally), or perhaps by their own limited resources (if there is any truth behind the rhetoric of 2 Cor 8:1–2).119 His veiled disappointment somewhat betrays the expectation that the Philippians would honour their initial commitment and keep their side of the bargain,120 even though, he is quick to remind them, he had been initiated (µεµύηµαι) into the mysteries of Christ-empowered αὐτάρκεια and could endure hardship to insufferable levels (4:11–13; cf. 2 Cor 11:23–27, 12:7–10). Nevertheless (πλήν),121 they had done well (καλῶς ἐποιήσατε)122 117 Did he contemplate committing suicide (as many ancient prisoners did)? Or did he simply lose the will to live? We shall never know. Cf. Arthur J. Droge, “Mori Lucrum: Paul and Ancient Theories of Suicide,” NovT 30.3 (1988): 263–86; Jaquette, “Not-SoNoble Death”; Nijay K. Gupta, “‘I Will Not Be Put to Shame’: Paul, the Philippians, and the Honourable Wish for Death,” Neot 42.2 (2008): 253–67; Peter-Ben Smit, “War Paulus Suizidal? Eine Psychiatrisch-Exegetische Notizmore,” BN 158 (2013): 113–18. On the living conditions in ancient prisons, see Wansink, Chained, 27–95 (see esp. pp. 58– 61 on the suicide of prisoners). 118 Cf. Beare, Philippians, 153; Collange, Philippians, 150. Although it does not cover Philippians, Fitzgerald’s study of Paul’s Peristasenkataloge remains fundamental. See John T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). 119 Capper’s suggestion that the Philippians ceased to support Paul because they perceived his imprisonment “as a breach of their initial contract,” and “had in consequence cut the flow of funds,” does not persuade. Why, indeed, would they have sent any assistance to Paul while he was in prison, if he had dishonoured their agreement? Capper provides no explanation. See Capper, “Dispute,” 208–211. 120 Cf. Pratscher, “Verzicht,” 288. Rilliet, again, suggests that Paul expected his love to be repaid and might have thus grown sad or concerned that their fruitful interaction had somewhat, temporally, waned: “L’amour a besoin d’amour, et Paul, qui portait dans son cœur l’Église de Philippes, avait besoin d’être payé de retour; peut-être trouvait-il qu’un trop long intervalle avait interrompu les rapports de cette Église avec lui, et éprouvait-il de l’inquiétude ou de la tristesse à cause de cette suspension dans des relations qui lui étaient douces.” Rilliet, Commentaire, 325–26 (emphasis added). 121 It should be understood as a strong “balancing adversative.” Thrall, Particles, 21. Cf. Blomqvist, Particles, 85–88. The editors of BDAG consider it as an adversative particle that breaks off a discussion and emphasizes what is important. BDAG, s.v. πλήν 1.c.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

269

to associate themselves with his predicament and thus to alleviate his temporary deprivations through Epaphroditus (συγκοινωνήσαντές µου τῇ θλίψει, 4:14). Though he may have been as enduring and longsuffering as some of his Stoic contemporaries, thanks to he who gave him strength (ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναµοῦντί µε), their gesture had proven to be a timely boon.123 It must have been their willingness to join forces with Paul regardless of the cost that had progressively won them a privileged place in his heart and missionary strategy. As they were well aware (οἴδατε δὲ καὶ ὑµεῖς, 4:15), when he had first set out from Macedonia into new territories (ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας),124 they had been the only assembly (οὐδεµία µοι ἐκκλησία … εἰ µὴ ὑµεῖς µόνοι) to partner (ἐκοινώνησεν) with him in the project, setting up what appears to have been some kind of account (λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως, 4:15), whose purpose was, presumably, to cover the expenses of his new mission. In our earlier philological survey, we have examined a number of documentary sources that have helped us determine more precisely the semantic source domain of the expression λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως (henceforth λόγος δ. καὶ λ.), and have concluded that it pertains to accounting terminology. Yet, we have refrained from offering a definite interpretation of Paul’s contextual usage of the phrase in 4:15, delaying our discussion as to whether it is best understood figuratively or literally until we would reach the relevant section of our exegesis. Inasmuch as recent scholarship has disagreed as to its significance, some considering it as an idiom denoting friendship or social-reciprocity (do ut des),125 others viewing it as an allusion to the Hellenistic principle of the maintenance of the 122 The expression clearly denotes a sense of approval for something that was duly accomplished (cf. 1 Cor 7:37–38). The collocation is very frequent in papyri (e.g., BGU IV 1078; P.Bad. II 35), and, when ποιέω is conjugated in the subjunctive, it typically expresses a request (i.e., please do such and such; e.g., P.Col. III 12; BGU II 596). Cf. MM, s.v. καλῶς; Moulton, Grammar, 173; Reed, Discourse, 278 (n. 457); Reumann, Philippians, 658. 123 Paul’s reference to his own αὐτάρκεια need not be an allusion to the Stoic concept, however. See Abraham J. Malherbe, “Paul’s Self-Sufficiency (Philippians 4:11),” in Friendship, Flattery and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World (ed. J. T. Fitzgerald; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 125–39. Cf. J. N. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961), 113–14. Engberg-Pedersen is of course of a different opinion. See Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 101. 124 We do not share the puzzlement of some commentators, such as Beare or Collange, over the meaning of ἀρχή τοῦ εὐαγγελίου for, in context, it is rather obvious that it refers to the beginning of a new missionary expedition as he left Macedonia (ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας). Cf. Beare, Philippians, 154; Collange, Philippians, 152; O’Brien, Philippians, 531–32; Capper, “Dispute,” 204–205. 125 Cf. Marshall, Enmity, 157–64; Peterman, Gift, 63–65, 146–51, Pilhofer, Philippi, 1:147–52.

270

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

Pneumatiker,126 to epistolary exchanges,127 or even as a reference to the Philippians’ oral response (of faith) to Paul’s initial preaching,128 we ought to pause momentarily and attempt to ascertain the likely significance of the phrase in context. We shall then resume our exegetical analysis at 4:16. 7.3.3 The Significance of the Phrase εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως (4:15) Our previous examination of the relevant literary and documentary evidence has led us to deduce that the expression λόγος δ. καὶ λ. most likely refers to a ledger of receipts and expenditures, and is probably a Graecism of the common Latin appellation ratio dati et accepti. As we shall see below, this confirms what some commentators had long suspected (though not properly documented).129 This, we previously posited, is also what the translators of the Vulgate seem to have understood as they rendered in ratione dati et accepti, which echoes a comparable expression in Cicero’s discourse on friendship (ratio acceptorum et datorum; Amic. 16.58).130 Initially noted by J. J. Wettstein,131 a few modern commentators have been particularly keen to explore the explanatory potential of this literary paral126 Georgi’s interpretation of this verse, which seems to be accepted by Bormann (but see later on p. 159), is particularly original: “Das ist eine andere Formulierung für den im hellenistischen Synkretismus geltenden Grundsatz für den Unterhalt der Pneumatiker, wie er etwa in Korinth vertreten und da von Paulus abgelehnt wurde, wie er aber später von Paulus zur Begründung seiner Sammlung für Jerusalem verwandt wird (Rom. 15, 27).” Georgi, Geschichte, 47. Cf. Bormann, Philippi, 151–52. 127 Zahn, Einleitung, 371: “Was Pl als eine das Geben und Nehmen dieser Gaben verrechnende Buchführung darstellt (4, 15–17), kann in der Wirklichkeit kaum etwas anderes gewesen sein, als ein brieflicher Austausch zwischen den Gebern und dem Empfänger” (emphasis added). 128 Otto Glombitza, “Der Dank des Apostels: Zum Verständnis von Philipper IV 10– 20,” NovT 7.2 (1964): 138: “εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως; ohne Frage ist hier von Geben und Nehmen die Rede, und man kann das im Sinne einer Rechnung begreifen. Hier geht es aber um die Teilhabe am Evangelium, dem Worte der Begnadigung; dies Wort fordert aber eine Antwort im Geben und Nehmen heraus, eine Antwort, mit der zugleich erwiesen wird, daß wirkliche Teilhabe am Evangelium besteht.” 129 See for instance Meyer, Philippians, 221; Vincent, Philippians-Philemon, 148; Kennedy, “Financial,” 43–44; Dodd, “Pauline Illustrations,” 294–96; Plummer, Philippians, 103–105; Straub, Bildersprache, 46; Beare, Philippians, 149–50, 155–56; Lohmeyer, Philipper, 185. 130 As Thilo comments on this passage, the term ratio ought to be understood as referring both to the computation process and the actual accounting document: “Der Begriff ratio steht sowohl für den Rechenvorgang selbst – Rechnung im mathematischen Sinn – als auch für das schriftliche Festhalten des Rechenvorgangs, der aber getrennt von der Aufzeichnung im Kopf oder auf dem Abacus durchgeführt wurde. Die schriftliche ratio ist nichts weiter als eine Gedächtnisstütze, eine listenförmige Aufstellung von Rechenposten.” Thilo, Codex, 111. 131 Wettstein, NTG 2:280. Cf. Thilo, Codex, 111 (n. 107).

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

271

lel, and have sought to interpret Paul’s wording through Cicero’s “sustained financial metaphor,”132 which is not without posing some difficulties. Insofar as these recent explanations have been quite influential, we ought to consider them carefully and assess whether they con-stitute valid interpretations.133 We shall then return to the tantalizing question of the significance of the phrase εἰς λόγον δ. καὶ λ. in 4:15. a) Selective History of Interpretation Our suggestion that this λόγος δ. καὶ λ. corresponds to a financial account is admittedly not entirely original and has already been put forward by a number of commentators, although none of them have substantiated their claim with the necessary supporting evidence (which may explain why they have mostly failed to persuade). The sixteenth-century scholar Théodore de Bèze, for instance, had grasped the allusion to a ledger, as is made clear from his commentary on the verse: Alludit autem ad pecuniarias rationes, in quibus habetur dati & accepti ratio.134 Less than a century later, the French Reformed scholar J. Daillé would also recognise in the expression a reference to merchants’ account books, in which both receipts and expenditures were written: Cette façon de parler est notable, et est tirée de la conduite des marchants et négociants, qui ont la coutume d’écrire séparément dans leurs livres les articles, tant de ce qu’ils ont dépensé, que de ce qu’ils ont reçu de ceux avec qui ils commercent, afin d’égaler le tout quand ils viennent à compter ensemble, pour demeurer quittes de part et d’autre, chacun avec son correspondant.135

132

Cicero also plays on calculos, which originally corresponded to “the beads on the abacus for accounting.” J. G. F. Powell, ed., Laelius, on friendship (Laelius de amicitia) & The dream of Scipio (Somnium Scipionis) (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1990), 106. 133 The influence of Marshall and Peterman over subsequent interpretations is evident. See for instance Ebner, Leidenslisten, 346; Stanley K. Stowers, “Friends and Enemies in the Politics of Heaven: Reading Theology in Philippians,” in Pauline Theology (vol. 1; ed. J. M. Bassler; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 110; Witherington III, Friendship, 131; Datiri, “Finances,” 182; Bockmuehl, Philippians, 263; Osiek, Philippians, 121–22; Charles B. Cousar, Reading Galatians, Philippians and I Thessalonians: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2001), 185–87; Edart, Philippiens, 314; Stephen E. Fowl, “Know Your Context: Giving and Receiving Money in Philippians,” Int 56.1 (2002): 45–58; idem, Philippians (THNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 196– 97; Ascough, Macedonian Associations, 120–21; Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 203; Aletti, Philippiens, 309; A. H. Snyman, “Philippians 4:10–23 from a Rhetorical Perspective,” AcT 27.2 (2007): 175–76; Hansen, Philippians, 319; Walton, “Paul,” 228. 134 I.e., but he alludes to the pecuniary accounts, in which is kept a reckoning of what was given and spent. Bèze, Nouum testamentum, 419. 135 Daillé, Exposition, 512–13 (the citation was adapted to modern French).

272

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

Daillé’s Dutch contemporary, H. Grotius, likewise understood the verse to evoke accounting tabulae, in which beneficia were recorded: non solent quidem beneficia in calendarium referri, sed tamen saepe ita loquimur, quasi ea in tabulas referrentur. Ego sum in vestris tabulis, vos in meis accepti.136 The last sentence nonetheless suggests that he found Paul’s language to be merely figurative.137 Yet, it is perhaps the Jesuit scholar Cornelius a Lapide who should be given credit for being the most explicit and detailed in his exegetical analysis. Grasping the economic resonance of the passage, he explained: Alludit ad tabulas computuum, & libros rationarios mercatorum, qui una libri parte, vel tabula conscribunt sua data & exposita, altera accepta, quae pro expositis receperunt; ut significet esse quamdam communicationem quasi mercium inter praedicatores & auditores, nimirum predicatores tradere Euangelium, veritatem & bona spiritualia: auditores vero eis rependere alimenta & bona temporalia.138

Paraphrasing Paul, Cornelius further elaborated on how he envisaged the account to have operated (drawing from the accounting techniques of his time, presumably): Habeo duas tabulas rationarias, quarum una continet ea, quae accepi; altera vero continet ea, quae dedi (praedicationem scilicet, labores, impensas, & bona Euangelii: quas dum inspicio, video me multa dedisse & impendisse Ecclesiis Macedoniae, nihil vero ab eis accepisse, nisi a vobis solis, qui estis Philippis).139

Not unlike his predecessor Grotius, Cornelius did not refrain from interpreting the verse in a more figurative way, however, comparing Paul’s 136 I.e., they were indeed not used to report benefactions in calendarium (i.e., account books), but as we often say, they were recorded, as it were, in tabulae. I am in your tabulae, and I have you in mine. Grotius, Annotationes, 108. The terms calendarium and tabula are most likely to be taken in their technical accounting sense here, although one is not sure of the distinction between the two that Grotius introduces. On the commercial and financial connotation of calendarium in Roman times, see the detailed discussion in Thilo, Codex, 104–108; Minaud, La comptabilité, 205–17. 137 Indeed, he further comments: Rursum dixit εἰς τὸν λόγον continuans tralationem a mercatoribus sumptam (i.e., again, he said, εἰς τὸν λόγον, continuing the metaphor borrowed from merchants). Grotius, Annotationes, 109. 138 I.e., he alludes to the computing tabulae and accounting books of merchants, who write on one part or table of the book their (debit) payments and expenses, (while) on the other (part) receipts which they have recovered for expenses; (by this) he means some quasi exchange between preachers and listeners, (whereby) preachers of course provide the gospel, the truth and spiritual benefits, (while) the listeners repay them with sustenance and material things. Cornelius a Lapide, Pauli epistolas, 609. 139 I.e., I have two accounting tabulae, one of which holds that which I received, while the other contains that which I give (namely, preaching, labours, expenses, and goods of the gospel: which when I examine, I see myself having given and spent many things for the churches of Macedonia, though in truth I have received nothing from them, except from you alone, who are at Philippi). Cornelius a Lapide, Pauli epistolas, 609.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

273

mutual exchanges of material and immaterial beneficia with the Philippians to the trading of commodities between merchants (quasi mercium). Yet, it is not entirely clear whether he considered that these tabulae corresponded to a physical ledger, or whether he thought that they simply alluded to their keeping a mental record of the transactions. The nineteenth-century German exegete, H. A. W. Meyer, would later follow a similar line of thought, considering verse 15 to indicate that Paul and the Philippians kept an account of their economic interaction: Die Philipper führen eine Rechnung über Ausgabe an Paulus und Einnahme von ihm, und eben so führt der Ap. Rechnung über Ausgabe an die Philipper und Einnahme von denselben. Dieses gegenseitige Rechnungsführen, wobei die δόσις des einen Theils mit der λῆψις des ändern stimmt, ist die κοινωνία εἰς λόγον etc.140

Yet, no “Geldbetrag” was to appear in the Philippians’ Rechnung “in die Rubrik der λῆψις,” and, reciprocally, “in die Rubrik der δόσις” of Paul’s account, apart from “der Segen,” which represented some kind of return income (“einkommende Einnahme”) for their earlier “Liebesgaben.”141 Just like Grotius and Cornelius, however, Meyer concluded that the expression merely constituted a “bildliche Darstellung.”142 Regrettably, these suggestive interpretations never made significant inroads in contemporary scholarship and were rapidly forgotten. For it seems that no serious thoughts were to be given to the financial aspect of Paul’s language until 1961, when the historian of Roman law, B. H. D. Hermesdorf, conjectured that this λόγος δ. καὶ λ. corresponded to the account of a Macedonian banker in which the Philippians had deposited funds.143 Upon reaching his destination, he posited, Epaphroditus had then withdrawn the money at a local argentarius who had a business relation with the original financier in Philippi. Thus, Epaphroditus could have travelled safely to wherever Paul was located without having to carry a potentially significant amount of cash.144 Unaware of Hermesdorf’s work, J. Fleury would instead suggest, two years later, that this λόγος δ. καὶ λ. referred to the jointaccount of the commercial societas that Paul had established with Lydia (or perhaps to the partners’ respective accounts, one is not sure), in which the gains of their mercantile activities were deposited and from which he 140

Meyer, Philipper, 193 (italics original). Meyer, Philipper, 193. 142 Meyer, Philipper, 193. 143 Hermesdorf, “Paulus”. 144 All Epaphroditus would have had to do was to hand-over the διαγραφή (i.e., a payment order) that the Macedonian banker had initially given him. The two argentarii would have then adjusted their accounts accordingly. Hermesdorf, “Paulus,” 255. This operation should not be mistaken for a permutatio, however. Cf. Thilo, Codex, 228 (n. 475). 141

274

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

could claim a share of the profits to provide for his own maintenance.145 As we shall see, Hermesdorf and Fleury’s tentative explanations are not without difficulties. Yet, they remain by far those that have most seriously attempted to elucidate this λόγος δ. καὶ λ., and the nature of Paul’s economic exchanges with the Philippians, from a Graeco-Roman socio-economic perspective. It is therefore unfortunate that they have been given little consideration by the majority of subsequent NT scholars. More recently, commentators have preferred a more metaphorical interpretation of the expression, even though they have recognised its economic overtones. P. Marshall, whose influential analysis of the passage would later be further developed by M. Ebner,146 was perhaps the first to make significant use of the Ciceronian evidence mentioned earlier (Amic. 16.58), and to remark that the “terms, and indeed the phrase, εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως, can be used for other than financial matters, though the original application to money matters is more or less in view.”147 In particular, Marshall drew attention to the context of Cicero’s discussion on friendship in which the “exact latin (sic) equivalent” (i.e., ratio acceptorum et datorum) appears, and suggested that the orator employed the expression “in a derogatory fashion … as an analogy of a popular view of friendship which likens it to an equal interchange of services and feelings.”148 Marshall then adduced additional examples drawn from Cicero, Seneca, and Aristotle, which, he contended, further illustrated that, in spite of their “distaste for merchandised relationships, these authors constantly resort to commercial language and ideas to describe friendships of all kinds.”149 These observations eventually led him to conclude that Paul probably used the phrase (ἐκοινώνησεν) εἰς λόγον δ. καὶ λ. as “an idiomatic expression indicating friendship.”150 For, “given the financial basis of the majority of friendships and the common use of commercial language and ideas in describing them,” and even though the “commercial nuances [of 145 Fleury, “société,” 51–52. As we have noted in our initial review, however, Fleury’s position is not entirely clear as he seems to have confused the ledger of the societas itself with the personal accounts of each of its members (Paul and Lydia, in this case). 146 Ebner, Leidenslisten, 346–64. 147 Marshall, Enmity, 160. It is unclear to use what other evidence Marshall found for the phrase εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως, which, as we have highlighted, is otherwise unattested in literary and documentary sources (apart from patristic commentaries quoting Paul verbatim). Marshall adduced the phrase λόγον δοῦναι καὶ λαβεῖν found in Plutarch (Mor. 11b), which “denotes engaging in mutual discourse or discussion” (p. 160). Yet, it is inaccurate to suggest that it is syntactically (and semantically) equivalent to the expression in Phil 4:15. 148 Marshall, Enmity, 160 (emphasis added). 149 Marshall, Enmity, 161. 150 Marshall, Enmity, 163.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

275

λόγος, δόσις, and λῆµψις] must prevail,” it ought to be understood metaphorically, as though Paul was “drawing upon familiar notions of friendship to acknowledge the recent gift and to express his gratitude.”151 Whilst Marshall’s argumentation is suggestive in some respect, and has certainly persuaded many, it raises a number of questions. First of all, it relies on the undemonstrated assumption that Cicero’s expression identifies rather precisely what we may designate as a literary trope (something which Marshall never states explicitly, but which his analysis implies logically). For, he argues, “phrases of this kind,” examples of which are not as philologically illuminating vis-à-vis Philippians 4:15 as one would hope, “occur frequently in relation to friendship, and often with a positive view.”152 However, this interpretation leads to an impressionistic appreciation of the evidence that does not take into consideration the technicality of this so-called idiom, or of verisimilar phrases, in the majority of cases in which they are used.153 To cite only one example, the expression rationes

151

Marshall, Enmity, 163. Marshall, Enmity, 160 (emphasis added). In n. 137, Marshall adduced the following examples: Cicero, Off. 1.18.59 (boni ratiocinatores officiorum); Seneca, Ben. 2.16.1– 2 (sine quibus facti ratio non constabit), Ben. 6.4.5 (inter beneficia quoque et iniurias ratio confertur – these comments are applied to a court case between a creditor and a debtor, however), Lucil. 81.18 (itaque huius quoque rei habebitur ratio, cum conferentur accepta et expensa). 153 See for instance, Cicero, Rosc. com. 1.2, 4: tabulas accepti et expensi/in codice accepti et expensi; idem 2.5: in codicem accepti et expensi; idem 3.8–9: in codicem accepti et expensi; Cicero, Verr. 2.2.76: tabulas accepti et expensi; Cicero, De or. 47.158: in accepti tabulis; Cicero, Font. 2.3: ratio litterarum confectioque tabularum habet hanc vim ut ex acceptis et datis quidquid fingatur; Valerius Maximus 3.7.1e: librum, quo acceptae et expensae summae; Seneca, Vit. beat. 23.5: ut qui meminerit tam expensorum quam acceptorum rationem esse reddendam; Seneca, Ben. 4.32.4: apud me istae expensorum acceptorum que rationes dispunguntur; Velius Longus, De ortho., p. 60, l. 13 : quam ab antiquis usitatam ait maxime in rationibus et in accepti tabulis; Ausonius, Grat. 5: accepti et expensi tabulae; C. Iulius Victor, Ars rhetorica, 3.1 De pragmatica (l. 10): ratio acceptorum, expensorum et solutorum. Cf. also Plautus, Truc. 70: quos quidem quam ad rem dicam in argentariis referre habere, nisi pro tabulis, nescio, ubi aera perscribantur usuraria: accepta dico, expensa ne qui censeat; Truc. 748: ratio accepti; Catullus 28: ecquidnam in tabulis patet lucelli expensum, ut mihi, qui meum secutus praetorem refero datum lucello (acceptum is probably replaced by lucellum here to meet the metre requirements of the verse; cf. Minaud, La comptabilité, 119); Dig. 2.14.47.1: cum quo rationem implicitam habebat propter accepta et data. Note how writers, Cicero especially, can use both tabula and codex interchangeably, or simply tabula (e.g. Cael. 6.17). Cf. Ste. Croix, “Accounting,” 42–43; Thilo, Codex, 81, 165; J. L. Sharpe III, “Dakhlet Tablets,” in Les tablettes (ed. Lalou), 130. For a compilation and informative discussion of the Ciceronian evidence, see Minaud, La comptabilité, 51–68. Cf. Thilo, Codex, 162–70. 152

276

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

accepto et dato in Plautus Pseudolus play (Pseud. 626), which is overlooked by most commentators, is certainly not employed metaphorically.154 There is no denying that writers like Cicero, Seneca, or even Plautus, occasionally developed accounting metaphors to speak of various forms of human interaction.155 Yet, this does not imply that economic terminology was always used metaphorically in discussions on friendship. As we have already pointed out in our review of G. W. Peterman, this reasoning is as fallacious as considering that terms denoting friendship (e.g., φίλος), or kinship (e.g., ἀδελφός), systematically acquire an economic connotation when found in commercial contexts. In any case, the fact that financial language is frequently found in Cicero and Seneca does not necessarily mean that this manner of speech constituted a common literary trope. Each case has to be examined on its own in context, and it is not realistic to expect the stylistic idiosyncrasies of one particular author to be characteristic of other contemporary, or not so contemporary (in the case of Aristotle), authors as well. The regular occurrence of such economic terminology may after all be simply due to the fact that, within Roman senatorial circles, friendship almost always involved some kind of financial exchange. Access to resources and to influential connections indeed constituted a powerful motivator behind Roman friendships (especially amongst the upper levels), friends’ gifts and loans being the first resort when in need of cash.156 154 Upon seeing the reluctance of Harpax to hand over the money owed to Pseudolus’ master, Pseudolus asks: Quid dubitas dare? (i.e., do you hesitate to give it to me?). Harpax questions: Tibi ego dem? (i.e., shall I give it to you?). To which Pseudolus replies: Mihi heracle uero, qui res rationesque eri Ballionis curo, argentum accepto [expenso] et quoi debet dato (i.e., to me, by Hercules, who manage the affairs and accounts of my master Ballio, who receive his money, and pay those to whom he owes some). 155 E.g., Plautus, Most. 1.3.304: Bene igitur ratio accepti atque expensi inter nos conuenit: Tu me amas, ego te amo (i.e., the account of receipts and expenditures between us balances well then: you love me and I love you); Seneca, Lucil. 81.18 (the context of the discussion is the comparaison of beneficium and iniuria): Ingratus est, qui beneficium reddit sine usura. Itaque huius quoque rei habebitur ratio, cum conferentur accepta et expensa (i.e., ungrateful is the man who repays a benefit without interests. So an account of this matter should be kept too, when receipts and expenses are tabulated; R. M. Gummere renders itaque huius quoque rei habebitur ratio by “interest also should be allowed for”). Cf. Andreau, “Banque grecque,” 486–88. Minaud, La comptabilité, 71. 156 See for instance Nicholas K. Rauh, “Cicero’s Business Friendships: Economics and Politics in the Late Roman Republic,” Aevum 60.1 (1986): 3–30; Andreau, Banques, 35–38, 59–60; Verboven, Economy; Marina Ioannatou, Affaires d’argent dans la correspondance de Cicéron: L’aristocratie sénatoriale face à ses dettes (Paris: de Boccard, 2006), 227–481; Dominic Rathbone and Peter Temin, “Financial Intermediation in FirstCentury AD Rome and Eighteenth-Century England,” in Pistoi dia tèn technèn: Bankers, Loans and Archives in the Ancient World (eds. K. Verboven, K. Vandorpe, and V. Chankowski; Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 382–83.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

277

Still, what is most problematic with Marshall’s comparison of Paul’s expression with Cicero’s metaphor is that it somewhat discounts the negative implications of the metaphor itself, and assumes a semantic connection between the two figures of speech that is far from obvious – the identification of a common source domain is valid, but helpful only to a certain point.157 Cicero clearly disapproved the sort of petty friendship that amounted to a strict reckoning of the benefits and services exchanged: Hoc quidem est nimis exigue et exiliter ad calculos vocare amicitiam, ut par sit ratio acceptorum et datorum.158 It remains unclear, however, how, and why, Marshall envisaged that Paul could have somehow turned what constituted a negative metaphor deploring inadequate friendship into a positive one.159 Paul’s commendation of the Philippians for their partnership in scrupulous record-keeping would have in fact been antithetical to Cicero’s conception of genuine and sincere friendship. As the latter affirms in the following sentence: divitior mihi et affluentior videtur esse vera amicitia nec observare restricte ne plus reddat quam acceperit (Amic. 16.58).160 It is therefore not certain that Cicero would have considered Paul’s relationship with the Philippians to be as “warm and lasting” as Marshall deemed it to be, a sign of “mutual exchange of services and affection.”161 From Cicero’s perspective, Paul’s letter to the Philippians might have been anything but a letter of friendship.162 Drawing his inspiration from Marshall’s interpretation, Peterman has also sought to explain the expression εἰς λόγον δ. καὶ λ. in the light of the ancient convention of social-reciprocity, and has been equally persuasive in the eyes of many modern commentators.163 Peterman was more dismissive of the economic overtones of the phrase, however, concluding that the terms “δόσις καὶ λῆµψις need not be taken as a technical-financial phrase even in Philippians,” for they simply refer to “the social practice of recip157 On the dangers of abusing such literary parallels, see S. Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81.1 (1962): 1–13; L. M. White and J. T. Fitzgerald, “Quod est comparandum: The Problem of Parallels,” in Early Christianity and Classical Culture (eds. J. T. Fitzgerald et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 13–39. 158 I.e., it is certainly calling friendship to a very petty and stingy accounting that the balance of what has been received and what has been given should be even. 159 Peterman recognises this issue and parts ways with Marshall at this point, however. Indeed, he argues that Marshall’s interpretation implies that Paul somewhat bowed to the social expectations and obligations of his cultural milieu. Peterman, Gift, 147, 157–59. 160 I.e., it seems to me that true friendship is richer and more abundant, and does not niggardly scrutinize the tally lest more be given than what is received. 161 Marshall, Enmity, 163–64. 162 This is the thrust of Marchal’s thesis. See Marchal, Hierarchy. 163 Briones has been more critical in his recent assessment, however. See Briones, Financial Policy, 118–19.

278

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

rocity in gifts and services.”164 We have already reviewed Peterman’s argumentation at length in our introduction and need not revisit the case. It may be simply reiterated that, not unlike Marshall, his analysis does not deal adequately with the relevant philological evidence and disregards both the overall context of 4:15–19 and the syntactical construction of the expression itself, in particular the governing role of the prepositional phrase εἰς λόγον. Equally problematic has been P. Pilhofer’s suggestion that the phrase λόγος δ. καὶ λ. corresponds to the Roman principle of social reciprocity, do ut des, which, he asserted, pervaded “allen Bereichen der Gesellschaft der Kolonie,” and which is supposed to have been conspicuous in the local inscriptions.165 For it represented “ein konstitutives Prinzip dieser Gesellschaft,” with which the Philippians, as any other inhabitants of the colony, would have been familiar.166 Paul, however, instigated a cultural paradigm shift when he led the Philippians to faith and subsequently encouraged them to apply the principle “im Hinblick auf eine völlig andere Bezugsgrösse,” that is, “im Rahmen ihrer κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον.”167 Pilhofer thereby meant that Paul exhorted the Philippians to invest no longer in earthly pursuits but in their heavenly πολίτευµα instead (cf. 3:20), which, understandably, caused a readjustment of their economic priorities. For “[d]iese grundlegende Umorientierung eines jeden einzelnen Christen in Philippi hat dann notwendigerweise auch eine Umorientierung des finanziellen Engagements zur Folge.”168 Whatever resources might have once been employed for civic or cultic purposes could now be redirected towards the “Unterstützung des Paulus.”169 While we concur with Pilhofer that 4:15 unequivocally highlights the “Einzigartigkeit und Bedeutsamkeit” of the Philippians’ “finanzielle Engagement” in the support of Paul’s mission,170 we remain unpersuaded by his overall interpretation. To begin with, none of the epigraphic “Beispielen, die das Prinzip des λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως illustrieren,” actually contain the phrase in question.171 By illustrieren, Pilhofer simply means that the Prinzip of social reciprocity, or, in such civic context, of municipal patronage, was exemplified in Philippi by the customary honouring of benefactors through the erection of commemorative monuments, or in164

Peterman, Gift, 65, 149. Pilhofer, Philippi, 1:151. 166 Pilhofer, Philippi, 1:151. 167 Pilhofer, Philippi, 1:151. 168 Pilhofer, Philippi, 1:152. 169 Pilhofer, Philippi, 1:152. 170 Pilhofer, Philippi, 1:147. 171 Pilhofer, Philippi, 1:148. 165

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

279

scriptions, in return for services or favours rendered to the city. 172 It may be further remarked that his proposed translation of do ut des by λόγος δ. καὶ λ. is, as far as we could ascertain, never encountered in Greek sources, despite the fact that authors such as Plutarch, Dio Chrysostom, or Lucian of Samosata, were acquainted with what we may broadly designate as the Roman patronage system (cf. Plutarch, Mor. 814c; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 44, 46; Lucian, Merc. cond.)173 – one would in any case rather expect the literal translation δίδωµι ἵνα διδῶµαι or δίδωµι ἵνα λαµβάνω, expressions which are also unattested.174 Furthermore, Pilhofer is quite inconsistent in his understanding of the so-called principle λόγος δ. καὶ λ. and in its application to instances of civic patronage,175 euergetism,176 or even to the activities of professional 172

Pilhofer, Philippi, 1:148–50. Cf. Christopher P. Jones, The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978), 104–14; Richard Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 30–31, 49–50. For a study of patronage in the Roman Greek East, see Claude Eilers, Roman Patrons of Greek Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 174 The sentence δίδωµι ἐὰν διδῶµαι only appears alongside similar sentences (i.e., τίθηµι ἐὰν τιθῶµαι, ἵστηµι ἐὰν ἱστῶµαι) in a discussion on accentuation in a grammatical treatise (A.D. II). See Herodianus, Grammatici, 3.1:462 (ll. 1–7). We could not find any relevant evidence in inscriptions and papyri. 175 E.g., Peter Pilhofer, ed., Katalog der Inschriften von Philippi (vol. 2 of Philippi; 2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 230–31, #213/L347. Cf. idem, Philippi, 1:148– 49. The inscription consists of a plaque commemorating the erection of a fountain by an aedilis named L. Decimius Bassus in his own honour (sibi), as well as that of his father, a former quaestor and duumvir, and that of his brother, who had yet to hold a municipal office. Pilhofer surmises that the aim of this public benefaction was to pave the way for the brother’s future magistracy, which is a fairly plausible interpretation. However, it is not clear to us why Pilhofer describes the whole procedure as illustrative of “der λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως.” It is certainly not obvious that the city should be thought to be herein repaying honour to the magistrates given that Decimius had ordered the fountain to be built (fieri iussit) using his own testamentary funds (testamento). The inscription should thus rather be seen as a propagandistic reminder of Decimius’ benevolence towards the community in the context of municipal patronage, which would have likely garnered the support of the local population as a return of favour (is this what Pilhofer means by the λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως?). 176 E.g., Pilhofer, Philippi2, 2:84–85, #087/L265 (a sarcophagus epitaph recording a rich citizen’s expenditures for gladiatorial shows and venationes). Cf. idem, Philippi, 1:149. Pilhofer’s interpretation of this inscription is problematic. After recalling the benefactions of the deceased, he indeed asks: “Hat er dafür nicht eine Ehreninschrift verdient? Das Prinzip des do ut des läßt diese Frage als rhetorisch erscheinen.” Pilhofer’s rhetorical question somewhat misleads one to think that the epitaph was carved as a show of gratitude for the departed, whereas it should be understood as a piece of selfadvertisement and as indicative of the way in which this benefactor wished to be remembered. 173

280

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

and cultic associations, for which “dieser λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως” was “der erste und wichtigste Daseinsgrund.”177 One of the inscriptions he adduces, for example, relates to a testamentary fund established by a member of the συµπόσιον θεοῦ Σουρεγέθου for the provision of commemorative banquets to be held at his tomb during the annual rosalia festival.178 It remains unclear to us, however, what Pilhofer finds particularly suggestive or illustrative of social-reciprocity in this case. The memorial services that the συµπόσιον was to perform had actually been paid for by the deceased himself through his personal funds. Yet, what is perhaps most difficult to accept in Pilhofer’s thesis is the implicit assimilation of Paul’s interaction with the Philippians to that between cities (or bodies of citizens) and their benefactors.179 Ultimately, one is unsure how he construes this benefactory relationship to have functioned. Does he understand the Philippians to be repaying honour to Paul, their (spiritual) patron, through their gifts? Or does he mean that the Philippians assumed the role of financial benefactors, thereby effectively placing Paul under their (economic) patronage (with the expectation to be honoured in return), which is precisely what he seems to have resisted in Corinth?180 Regrettably, Pilhofer has not elaborated more precisely his thoughts on the matter (unlike L. Bormann), which further undermines his proposed explanation of the expression εἰς λόγον δ. καὶ λ.181 b) Paul’s Missionary Fund with the Philippians As is made evident from the previous overview, none of the interpretations recently propounded have adequately elucidated the significance of the phrase εἰς λόγον δ. καὶ λ. Rather, they have tended to circumvent the question by appealing to vague and abstract socio-cultural concepts, and have avoided dealing with the relevant philological evidence, which, as we have demonstrated in our third chapter, strongly suggests that this λόγος δ. καὶ λ. effectively designates a ledger in which receipts and expenditures were recorded. It may be further remarked that metaphorical interpretations of the expression generally ignore the immediate context of 4:15–16, which 177

Pilhofer, Philippi, 1:149. Pilhofer, Philippi2, 2:134–37, #133/G441; idem, Philippi, 1:149–50. Cf. Paul Lemerle, “Le testament d’un Thrace à Philippes,” BCH 60 (1936): 336–43. On the corpus of epigraphic evidence concerning the rosalia festivals in Philippi, see Paul Perdrizet, “Inscriptions de Philippes: Les Rosalies,” BCH 24 (1900): 299–323; Paul Collart, “ΠΑΡΑΚΑΥΣΟΥΣΙΝ ΜΟΙ ΡΟ∆ΟΙΣ,” BCH 55 (1931): 58–69. 179 Pilhofer, Philippi, 1:147–52. 180 Cf. Marshall, Enmity, 233, 257; Welborn, Enmity, 368, 398–400. Cf. Judge, “Cultural Conformity,” 15–16, 23. 181 Cf. Bormann, Philippi, 206–24. 178

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

281

recalls the Philippians’ long lasting support of Paul’s mission, and which precedes his acknowledgement of their latest contribution in 4:18. Nor do they give enough consideration to the crucial syntactical function of the prepositional phrase εἰς λόγον, on which the genitives δόσεως and λήµψεως depend and from which they derive their economic connotation. Just as in 4:17 where it makes little sense to take εἰς λόγον ὑµῶν as meaning (the fruit accruing) on account of you or in reference to you, so it seems best to retain the accounting connotation of εἰς λόγον in 4:15 as well. To understand on account of or in reference to something as abstract as giving and receiving certainly makes for an odd interpretation.182 This understanding is further supported by the collocation with the verb κοινωνέω (not µεταδίδωµι or µετέχω), which harks back to the κοινωνία to which they had initially agreed (cf. 1:5). In context, it is perhaps best taken as meaning to associate with, rather than as signifying to share or to have/ give a share (a sense which might have been intended if the partitive genitive τοῦ λόγου δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως had been employed).183 Significantly, this is how the verb (ἐπι)κοινωνέω is used in some of the papyri we examined earlier, such as P.Lond. V 1794 (ὁµολογοῦµεν ἑτοί̣µως ἔχε[ι]ν κοινωνεῖν ἀ•ήλοις ε̣[ἰ]ς τὴν προειρηµένην τεχνὴν ὠ̣πωρώνην, ll. 7–8; A.D. 487), P.Lond. V 1660 (κοινωνεῖν καὶ συµµετέχειν σοι εἰς τὸ ἐπιβάλλον σοι µέρος κατὰ τὸ ἥµισυ, ll. 18–19; A.D. 553), P.Köln II 101 (ὁµολογοῦµεν ἐπικοινωνήσιν ἀλλήλοις εἰς ἐργασίαν βρυτανικῆς τέχνης, ll. 7–10; A.D. 274– 280), or P.Oxy. X 1280 (ὁµολογῶ … ἐπικοινωνῖν σοι εἰς τὸν ψυκτῆρα τοῦ καµηλῶνος, ll. 4–7; A.D. IV). In each case, the verb is followed by a prepositional phrase introduced by εἰς that indicates the purpose, or sphere of application, of the business partnerships contracted. Assuming the same telic force of εἰς in 4:15, the phrase could therefore be understood as alluding to their mutual decision to partner in the joint-establishment and, consequently, the joint-administration, of some kind of account. This is somewhat what N. Baumert also concluded. Perceiving the “geschäftliche Konnotationen” of κοινωνέω, he suggested the following paraphrase for the verse: “Keine Gemeinde hat mit mir (Geschäfts-) Beziehungen gehabt in Verrechnung von Ausgabe und Einnahme, hat mit mir auf geschäftliche Weise zu tun gehabt, hat mit mir wie ein ‘Kunde’

182 Contra Bengel, Gnomon, 155; Rilliet, Commentaire, 331. Cf Ellicott, Philippians, 101; Eadie, Philippians, 273; Meyer, Philippians, 222. 183 Cf. LSJ, s.v. κοινωνέω 1. and 2.; BDAG, s.v. κοινωνέω; L&N, s.v. κοινωνέω; MM, s.v. κοινωνέω; Hauck, TDNT 3:797, 808. The entry in LSJ is another example, if we needed one, of the critical need for its revision, as the first two entries give the same glosses: 1. “have or do in common with, share, take part in a thing with another”; and 2. “have a share of, take part in a thing.”

282

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

verhandelt.”184 In the immediate context, the verb συγκοινωνέω (µου τῇ θλίψει; 4:14) may also be understood as bearing a certain economic connotation, as Baumert has further intimated: “Ihr habt meiner (finanziellen) Not geholfen; freier: habt mir finanziell unter die Arme gegriffen, habt mich unterstützt.”185 After all, the θλῖψις Paul alluded to did not merely correspond to an abstract reality, that is, some moral or emotional affliction, but to a practical situation of material deprivation. In the light of these elements, it seems therefore preferable to retain the financial technicality of the expression and to interpret it as referring to some kind of joint-account or to a common monetary fund. What remains to be determined more precisely, if indeed it is at all possible, is the type of account or fund that this λόγος δ. καὶ λ. may have represented. While it is difficult to answer with absolute certainty, we may herein offer a tentative solution by considering the various possible options and by eliminating those least suitable. Before we proceed, however, we ought to acknowledge that very little is known about Roman accounting.186 No example of a codex accepti et expensi (henceforth codex a. et e.) has been preserved, for 184

Baumert, Koinonein, 274. Several other commentators and translators seem to have grasped this as well. Beare, Philippians, 149: “you alone entered into partnership with me in an accounting of receipts and expenditures”; Collange, Philippians, 148: “no other church than you was associated with me by a profit-and-loss account”; BDAG, s.v. κοινωνέω 2.: “οὐδεµία µοι ἐκκλησία ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς no congregation made me its partner in Phil 4:15.” The translators of the RSV and ESV also capture the connotation of ἐκοινώνησεν well when they render “no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving,” though they miss the point of εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως. The following French versions are somewhat more accurate: “aucune Église n’entra en compte avec moi pour ce qu’elle donnait et recevait” (1910 Bible Louis Segond; 1979 Nouvelle Edition Genève); or “aucune Église ne m’assista par mode de contributions pécuniaires (1973 Bible de Jérusalem).” Cf. the 1545 and 1912 Luther Bibel: “keine Gemeinde mit mir geteilet/geteilt hat nach der Rechnung der Ausgabe und Einnahme als ihr allein”; and the 1951 Schlachter Bibel: “keine Gemeinde sich mit mir geteilt hat in die Rechnung der Einnahmen und Ausgaben” (but the 2000 version changed to: “keine Gemeinde mit mir Gemeinschaft gehabt hat im Geben und Nehmen”). 185 Baumert, Koinonein, 274. 186 As Minaud affirms: “En ce qui concerne les Romains, rien ne peut être défini avec certitude. La configuration générale et l’exploitation de leurs comptes ne sont pas connues dans le détail.” Minaud, La comptabilité, 149. Even Cicero, despite his many references to codices and tabulae, provides us with no technical explanations. Cf. ibid., 48. Likewise, Thilo deplored: “Wir haben keine sichere Kenntnis davon, was dieser codex accepti et expensi war. Fest steht nur, daß er in irgendeinem Zusammenhang mit der Buchführung des paterfamilias gestanden hat. Wir wissen aber nicht genau, welchen Zwecken er diente, unter welchen Umständen er entstand, noch, warum er anscheinend dann wieder außer Gebrauch kam; wir wissen daher erst recht nicht exakt, wie denn nun die Litteralobligation zustande gekommen ist. Kein Exemplar eines derartigen codex ist uns erhalten geblieben, mit Ausnahme vielleicht des ‘Petrefakts’ aus Herculaneum, von dem Arangio-Ruiz berichtet; aber das ist unentzifferbar.” Thilo, Codex, 2–3.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

283

instance, and any insight we have on the matter has been inferred from the few triptychs that have survived (e.g., T.Sulpicii 60).187 What is quite clear, though, is that different registers existed for different purposes or types of economic activities, and that accounting principles did not dramatically evolve over time.188 So it may be possible to identify more specifically the kind of ledger Paul had in mind. One of the first financial documents we ought to consider is the codex a. et e., whose primary purpose was to record the state and evolution of a paterfamilias’ patrimony, both his active and passive assets, as was required for census purposes.189 Its use was restricted to Roman citizens possessing patria potestas,190 and was denied to Junian Latins and peregrini.191 Its composition was a gravissima and sanctissima matter that required diligentia and auctoritas (cf. Cicero, Rosc. com. 1.3–2.8).192 Since it was never

187 T.Sulpicii 60 is particularly intriguing. It begins with the title tabellae, which is followed by a name in the genitive, and is divided into two sections with the respective headings exp (i.e., expensos) and acp (i.e., acceptos), under which are recorded the entries of some financial transactions which, according to Wolf, may have been extracted from the codex accepti et expensi. See Joseph G. Wolf, “From the Recent Discovery of Documents in Pompeii: The tabellae of Titinia Antracis and the Suretyship of Epichares,” Roman Legal Tradition 2 (2004): 82–95. Cf. Bove, Documenti, 152–53 (= T.Pomp. 73); Peter Gröschler, Die tabellae-Urkunden aus den pompejanischen und herkulanensischen Urkundenfunden (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1997), 67–75. 188 Minaud, La comptabilité, 31–32. Cf. Elizabeth Grier, Accounting in the Zenon Papyri (New York: Columbia University Press, 1934), 7; Gunnar Mickwitz, “Economic Rationalism in Graeco-Roman Agriculture,” EHR 52.208 (1937): 582, 584; Andreau, La vie financière, 615 (n. 43). 189 Minaud summarizes this well: “Le codex accepti et expensi donnait la composition de l’actif immobilisé réparti en éléments corporels et incorporels mais aussi chiffrés au coût historique d’acquisition. Il restituait également l’état du passif et permettait de tirer un solde net de la situation du paterfamilias suivant l’adage ‘bona non intelleguntur nisi deducto aere alieno’.” Minaud, La comptabilité, 139. For more details, see his thorough treatment of the redaction of the codex. Ibid., 119–49. Cf. Thilo, Codex, 158–61, 187–96. 190 Cf. Cicero, Cael. 7.17: tabulas qui in patris potestate est nullas conficit (i.e., he who is under the power of his father keeps no tabulae). 191 This might explain its slow disappearance and the increasing popularity of the chirographum, a legal document of Greek origin. As Rome expanded, its citizens must have indeed developed the need to do business with perigrini on an equal legal footing, something which the codex did not enable (for a transaction between parties to be legally valid, it needed to appear on the codex of each party, which would not have been possible for peregrini since they did not own any). See Minaud, La comptabilité, 129–35; idem, “Les livres de comptes privés et le droit au temps de Néron,” in Neronia VIII: Bibliothèques, livres et culture écrite dans l’empire romain de César à Hadrien (ed. Y. Perin; Bruxelles: Latomus, 2010), 139–41. Cf. Leonhard, “Codex,”160–61; Thilo, Codex, 197–202; Andreau, Banques, 92. 192 Thilo, Codex, 164.

284

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

“lié à un métier spécifique,”193 it should therefore be differentiated from the registers of the bankers and money-changers in Rome and Italy (i.e., the argentarii, coactores argentarii, and later the nummularii),194 which are usually referred by the jurists as rationes or codices rationum,195 and sometimes as rationes implicita propter accepta et data.196 The codex a. et e. should also be distinguished from other kind of business accounts, such as those commonly found in papyri, which functioned as some sort of livres de caisse or cashbooks.197 We will never know for sure whether Paul kept a codex a. et e., although it seems very unlikely that he owned enough assets to require one.198 It is equally improbable, if not impossible, that he could have envisaged associating (cf. ἐκοινώνησεν) the Philippians to the operations recorded in his codex, since, according to Roman law, it was a private legal document which was strictly reserved for personal use. At most, Paul’s codex a. et e. would have simply recorded whatever transaction he would have made with the Philippians.199 So we may eliminate the codex a. et e. as a potential candidate for Paul’s λόγος δ. καὶ λ. Given his vocational activities, it is however quite reasonable to assume that Paul employed either some kind of ἐφηµερίς or adversaria, i.e., a rough (neglegenter) account book containing daily financial operations (cf.

193

Andreau, Banques, 92. Here we follow Andreau’s distinction between the argentarii and coactores argentarii, “des hommes de métier” and “les seuls vrais banquiers de dépôt,” from the nummularii, the essayeurs et changeurs de monnaies, during the early empire. From A.D. II onwards, however, the latter progressively assumed the role of the former. See Andreau, La vie financière, 16, 32. On the importance of this distinction to properly appreciate the organisational evolution of the Roman economy, see especially pp. 40–48. 195 See Dig. 2.13.4, 2.13.6, 2.13.8, 2.13.9.2, 2.13.10, 2.13.10.2, 40.7.40.8, 50.16.89.2. Cf. Andreau, La vie financière, 615–17. 196 Dig. 2.14.47.1 (cf. Dig. 2.13.6.3). Cf. Thilo, Codex, 221–46; Andreau, La vie financière, 557, 616. 197 Minaud, La comptabilité, 61–65. Cf. Jean Andreau, “Pouvoirs publics et archives des banquiers professionnels,” in La mémoire perdue: A la recherche des archives oubliées, publiques et privées, de la Rome antique (ed. S. Demougin; Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1994), 3; Jean Andreau, “Registers, Account-books, and Written Documents in the De Frumento,” in Sicilia Nutrix Plebis Romanae: Rhetoric, Law and Taxation in Cicero’s Verrines (ed. J. R. W. Prag; BICSSup 97; London: University of London, 2007), 86–87. 198 As Minaud notes: “Il est certainement abusif de penser que tout Romain, tout ciuis romanus, constituait et conservait une comptabilité personelle rigoureuse. Seul un degré significative de patrimoine justifiait et nécessitait une telle contrainte.” Minaud, La comptabilité, 56. Cf. ibid., 67. 199 That is to say, a deposit (δόσις) made to the account of the Philippians would have been recorded as a withdrawal on his codex (λήµψις), and vice versa. 194

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

285

Cicero, Rosc. com. 2.6–7, 3.8–9),200 or a more elaborate and permanent cashbook of receipts and expenditures, i.e., a ratio accepta et data/ expensa.201 Recent studies have highlighted the diligence of Graeco-Roman people, including modest ones, in keeping such accounts, even though their technique was obviously not as rationalized as modern accounting practices.202 For example, in a petition to the strategos of Arsinoite (P.Mich. V 228, A.D. 47), a man complained of being cheated while settling accounts with a shepherd: ἐµοῦ λογοπυοιουµένου πρὸς Βεντῆτιν Βεντήτιος προβατοκτηνοτρόφου τῶν ἀπὸ Ὀξυρύνχων … περὶ ὧν ὀφίλι µοι ὠψωνίων καὶ µετρηµάτων οὗ{ν}τος οὖν µὴ βουλόµενος ἀποδοῦναι ἀλλὰ καὶ διαπλανῶναι ὕβριν µοι ἐπετέλεσον καὶ τῇ γυναικί µου κτλ. (ll. 10–16).203 A similar grievance is heard in a petition to the chief of police of Euhemeria (P.Ryl. II 141, A.D. 38). As the slave of an exegete proceeded to settle account (ἐλ[ογ]οποιήσαµην, ll. 10–11) with a certain man over a pledge (ἐνεχύρου, l. 14), a scuffle erupted and the slave lost sixty drachmas and his tablet (πινακείδα, l. 19) in the struggle.204 Accurate financial records were also required for fiscal and legal purposes, and could be produced as evidence in litigations (cf. Cicero, Rosc. com.; Verr. 2.2.74–76).205 A good illustration of this is provided in a peti200

At the end of the month, diligent patres familiae would then report these operations onto their codex accepti et expensi, i.e., tabulae, which alone could be produced as evidence in court. On the purpose and use of ἐφηµερίδες/adversaria in Roman business matters, see especially Thilo, Codex, 181–86. Cf. OLD, s.v. aduersaria, 56; R. Leonhard, “Adversaria,” PW[1] 1:430–31; J. Ortolan, Explication historique des Instituts de l’Empereur Justinien (4 vols; 12th ed.; Paris: Plon, 1883), 3:244–45; Meyer, Legitimacy, 33– 34; Minaud, La comptabilité, 56. On the special powers attributed to tabulae in courts, see Meyer, Legitimacy, 216–41. 201 E.g., T.Vindol. II 180, 200; CIL III 2, p. 953; P.Masada 722. 202 See especially Rathbone, Rationalism, 331–87; Gérard Minaud, “Rationalité modulable des comptabilités,” Topoi Orient-Occident 12/13 (2005): 271–81. Cf. A. E. R. Boak, “An Overseer’s Day-Book from the Fayoum,” JHS 41.2 (1921): 217–21; Thilo, Codex, 112–21 (on rationes rusticae); Andreau, “Pouvoirs publics,” 1–18; Jakab, “Berenike,” 78–82; Jean-Jacques Aubert, “De l’usage de l’écriture dans la gestion d’entreprise à l’époque romaine,” in Mentalités et choix économiques des Romains (eds. J. Andreau, J. France, S. Pittia; Pessac: Ausonius, 2004), 127–47 (esp. 142–44). 203 I.e., while I was settling account with Bentetis, the son of Bentetis, a shepherd from Oxyrhyncha, concerning payments and allowances which he owes me, since he did not want to pay me but to cheat me, he insulted me and my wife etc. Cf. Rowlandson, Women, 294–95, #229; Naphtali Lewis, Life in Egypt under Roman Rule (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983), 79. 204 The edd. pr. translated ἐλογοποιήσαµην as “I entered into conversation,” which is certainly possible. In context, however, it makes more sense to understand I settled account. See P.Ryl. II 141, p. 142. 205 Certain Roman legal sources suggest that some accounting evidence needed to be kept for at least ten years (Dig. 50.15.4), if not for two generations (cf. Cicero, Verr.

286

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

tion written by a wine merchant named Apion to the prefect of Egypt concerning the suspected fraud of the widow of his former business partner (P.Oxy. XXII 2342; A.D. 102). The merchant relates that, upon taking the matter to the strategos, the latter ordered that the ledger (ἐφηµερίς)206 of her deceased husband Pasion be cross-examined, so as to ascertain Apion’s claims that the widow, Berenike, had withheld profits from him and was hoarding his stock of wine: ἰδὼν (the strategos) αὐτὴν ψευδοµένην [ᾔτησε] τὴ̣ν̣ τοῦ ἀποθανόντο[ς] ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς Π̣ [ασίωνος] ἐφηµερίδα (ll. 19–21).207 Apion alleged that she had declared erroneous information and had hidden the ledger (ll. 18–20, 25–26). Appealing to the prefect,208 he then requested that she be compelled to settle the accounts (λ̣ ό̣γ̣ο̣ υ̣ ς ̣ τάξ[̣ ε]σθαι, l. 30) and to restitute his share of the profits as well as his deposit of wine (ll. 31– 32). Interestingly, Apion’s accusation that Berenike was responsible for the falsification of the books is indirectly confirmed by the evidence of SB XX 14409 (l. 11: καὶ δι’ ἐµοῦ τῆς Βερε(νίκης); A.D. I), “an account of income and expenditure written by Berenice herself in a professionally developed hand.”209 Yet, Apion must have also kept some kind of register since he knew, down to the obol, the amount of his debt, and could challenge the widow’s declaration to the strategos.210 Could this type of commercial account be what Paul had in mind by λόγος δ. καὶ λ.? This seems to be what was envisaged by the Vulgate translator(s), whom Fleury appears to have followed, as they rendered the expression by the phrase ratio dati et accepti, though one cannot be entirely sure.211 Following the Vulgate may ultimately prove to be misleading, however, for it tells us nothing more than what its translator(s) thought it

2.23.60), while computing errors could be rectified even twenty years later (Dig. 50.8.10). See Minaud, La comptabilité, 110–14, 124–30; Minaud, “Les livres,” 133–36. Cf. Andreau, La vie financière, 617–18; idem, “Pouvoirs publics,” 1. 206 On the purpose and use of ἐφηµερίδες in Roman business matters, see especially Thilo, Codex, 181–86. 207 I.e., (the strategos) seeing that she was lying, [asked] for the ledger of her deceased husband P[asion]. 208 The strategos appears to have meanwhile become distracted with some other matter, the reason of which is unclear (cf. ll. 27–28). 209 Minnen, “Berenice, 60.” A concise description is found in P.Oxy. VI 985. 210 Apion claimed a total of 5,249 drachmas and 4 obols (ll. 23–26), which, he alleged, Berenike had grossly inflated in her declaration to the strategos (i.e., 3,000 drachmas in IOU’s plus 5,000 on the wine as guarantee; ll. 18–19). He also alluded to the fact that Pasion used to show him the account on a regular basis (τὴ̣ν̣ τοῦ ἀποθανόντο[ς] ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς Π̣ [ασίωνος] ἐφηµερίδα ἣν πολλάκις ἐπέφε[ρεν αὐτὸς/µοι?], ll. 20–22), while Berenike had withheld it (διδαχθεῖσα µὴ ἐπι[φ]έρειν διὰ τὸν ἔλεγχον ἔκρυψε, ll. 25–26). 211 Fleury, “société,” 51–52.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

287

to have meant a few centuries later.212 In any case, we are once again faced with the difficulty as to how, and why, Paul could have associated (cf. ἐκοινώνησεν) the Philippians to his own business account. The above question may thus be answered negatively. There remains therefore only three possible alternatives. This λόγος δ. καὶ λ. may have represented either: a) the account of a local banker, in which the Philippians would have deposited funds destined for Paul;213 b) the ledger of the Philippian congregation itself, which may have kept an arca communis, as was common of professional and/or cultic associations;214 c) the joint account of Paul and the Philippians, who may have formed a societas (cf. Cicero, Verr. 2.2.76: tabulae societatis; Dig. 17.2.12: rationes societatis).215 According to B. H. D. Hermesdorf, the first option (a) would have allowed the Philippians to transfer money to Paul safely without having to carry a potentially significant amount of cash through unpoliced territories. All he would have needed to do to claim the funds would have been to present a διαγραφή (payment order)216 to a banker who had a business relation with the Philippian argentarius, with whom the funds had been originally

212

On the difficulties associated with the use of Latin versions, see for instance Bonifatius Fischer, “Limitations of Latin in Representing Greek,” in The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (ed. B. M. Metzger; Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), 362–74. 213 Hermesdorf remains the only scholar to have seriously considered this option. See Hermesdorf, “Paulus”. On the rationes argentariorum see Thilo, Codex, 221–46. 214 This would supplant the earliest piece of evidence of a church owning an arca, which is first mentioned in Tertullian (Apol. 39). Justin Martyr also makes reference to what is collected in the assembly and deposited with the president: τὸ συλλεγόµενον παρὰ τῷ προεστῶτι ἀποτίθεται (1 Apol. 67). Jews are also known to have had common foundations, chests, or treasuries. Cf. IAphrodJud; Jean Juster, Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain: Leur condition juridique, économique et sociale (vol. 1; Paris: P. Geuthner, 1914), 425– 27; John M. G. Barclay, “Money and Meetings: Group Formation among Diaspora Jews and Early Christians,” in Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien (eds. A. Gutsfeld and D.-A. Koch; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 117–18. For a helpful study of common chests in the ancient world, see J. Albert Harrill, “The Common Chest in Antiquity,” in The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 129–57. Cf. Waltzing, Étude, 1:449–50; Ziebarth, Vereinswesen, 156; David J. Downs, The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts (WUNT 2.248; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 94–101. 215 This may be what Fleury envisaged, but, as we pointed out in our introduction, his position is not entirely clear. Cf. Fleury, “société,” 51–52. On tabulae societatis, see Thilo, Codex, 217–21. 216 On the use of διαγραφή by ancient bankers, see Bogaert, Banques, 57–60, 335–45; idem, “l’emploi du chèque,” 252; Andreau, La vie financière, 353–54

288

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

deposited.217 Whilst this procedure was in theory possible, and is in fact well attested at a local level, especially in Egypt,218 it is less likely to have occurred frequently across provinces and was probably reserved for affluent personalities or state officials who relied on the publicani (cf. Cicero, Fam. 3.5.4; Att. 12.24, 12.27, 12.32, etc.).219 Furthermore, it does not explain why Paul could have considered being associated (cf. ἐκοινώνησεν) with the Philippians to a banker’s own “lopende rekening” (i.e., current account) – not to mention that the ledger in question could not have been a current account.220 This understanding is all the more unlikely since bankers did not keep a separate register for each of their clients but recorded all their daily transactions in a single codex (rather than a volumen), which was organised chronologically and not by accounts.221 This first option may therefore be dismissed. The second alternative (b), though equally suggestive at first, is confronted with the same difficulty. The idea that the Philippian congregation may have had an arca communis is not at all improbable considering the financial organisation of professional and/or cultic associations. What is more unlikely, however, is that Paul, who was attached to good financial ethics (cf. 2 Cor 2:17, 8:20–21, 12:17; 1 Thess 2:5), could somehow claim to have owned a share of its content or to have been associated with its operations (cf. ἐκοινώνησεν). The most likely option, therefore, is that this λόγος stands for the account of a common fund or foundation that Paul had established in partnership with the Philippians, in which contributions were made (λήµψεις), and from which money could be withdrawn (δόσεις)

217

The two bankers would have then balanced their respective books accordingly. This operation should not be mistaken for permutatio, however. Cf. Thilo, Codex, 228 (n. 475). 218 Cf. Bogaert, Banques, 342–45; idem, “l’emploi du chèque”; Inoue Hiderato, “The Transfer of Money in Roman Egypt,” Kodai 10 (1999): 83–104; Peter F. Bang, The Roman Bazaar: A Comparative Study of Trade and Markets in a Tributary Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 285–86. 219 Cf. Christopher Howgego, “The Supply and Use of Money in the Roman World 200 B.C. to A.D. 300,” JRS 82 (1992): 28; Andreau, Banques, 48–51, 88–89; Verboven, Economy, 132–40. See also Emil Kießling, “Giroverkehr,” PWSup 4:699–700. 220 Hermesdorf, “Paulus,” 253. As already pointed out in our initial review of Fleury, the financial technical concept of current account did not appear in Europe until the eighteenth century. Cf. Vasseur and Marin, Les comptes, 366–69; Thilo, Codex, 9–10; Andreau, Banques, 91. 221 This rudimentary technique implied that clients needed to keep their own record of the sums deposited or withdrawn in order to know their account balance. Cf. Thilo, Codex, 244–45; Andreau, La vie financière, 615–26; idem, “Pouvoirs publics,” 3–4; idem, Banques, 82–83, 91–92.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

289

to pay for some of his ministry expenditures.222 The funds may have been kept in an account at a local bank, or in an arca on the premises of the ἐκκλησία, if it had any, or at the home of one of its financial overseers, perhaps one of the ἐπίσκοποι mentioned in 1:1.223 As we shall see in our final chapter, the creation and implementation of a partnership, i.e., a societas, effectively involved a degree of shared accounting. It required that the socii keep tabulae and an arca communis (cf. Cicero, Verr. 2.2.76, Font. 2; Dig. 3.4.1.1, 17.2.12, 17.2.82),224 that they settle accounts once the societas was terminated,225 and, without specific terms stating otherwise, likely entailed the co-ownership of any of the capital assets contributed to the societas (as could also be implied by the verb ἐκοινώνησεν here).226 c) Summary To conclude our discussion on the significance of the phrase λόγος δ. κ. λ., there is no particular reason to interpret it as a sophisticated metaphor evoking ideals of friendship or social-reciprocity, or even as alluding to epistolary exchanges. Rather, on the basis of philological, exegetical, and socio-economic considerations, it seems preferable to regard this λόγος δ. κ. λ. as the account of a common fund which Paul had established in consort with the Philippians, whereby money was regularly allocated to provide for the costs associated with his missionary activities. The question as to how funds may have been made available to Paul while away from Macedonia is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain given the paucity of our evidence. What is more certain, however, is that setting up such a foundation would have represented the most effective way to collect, manage, and utilize finances to fund Paul’s missionary activities.

222 Though he pursues a metaphorical interpretation, Ebner seems to admit this fact when he remarks: “Es fällt nicht schwer, die Linien zu ziehen: Mit ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως in 4,15 ist hauptsächlich an die finanzielle Komponente der Freundschaftskoinonia gedacht. Die Philipper lassen Paulus – wie es sich für Freunde gehört – an der gemeinsamen Kasse teilnehmen und werden dafür sogar selbst aktiv, indem sie ihm das Geld über Epaphroditus zuschicken.” Ebner, Leidenslisten, 357. 223 On the likely sense of ἐπίσκοπος as financial supervisor, see Reumann, “Contributions,” 446–50; Ascough, Macedonian Associations, 80–81, 129–33 (less decisively so). Cf. LSJ, s.v., ἐπίσκοπος; Poland, Vereinswesens, 377. 224 Cf. Cimma, Ricerche, 197–205; Andreau, “Registers,” 87. 225 Cf. Buckland, Text-Book, 508–509; Taubenschlag, “societas,” 70; Jakab, “Berenike,” 77–82. 226 This point is not clearly stated in legal sources, but it seems to be a logical deduction. See B. Beinart, “Capital in Partnership,” Acta Juridica 124 (1961): 123–24.

290

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

7.3.4 Additional Insights into Paul’s Κοινωνία with the Philippians (4:16–17) The economic aspect of the κοινωνία agreed by both parties continues to occupy centre stage in verse 16, where we are told it involved supplying to Paul’s needs (εἰς τὴν χρείαν µοι) on several occasions (καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δίς), from even (καί) as early as when he had stayed in Thessalonica. One may note, once again, that no precise information is provided concerning the details and conditions of the agreement. They had most likely been settled orally and were probably never committed to writing, as was common with consensual arrangements (cf. Dig. 17.2.4 pr.).227 A verbal agreement sufficed. We do not know either what form of assistance Paul had accepted, if not requested, to receive. It may have consisted of funds to provide for his personal maintenance or to cover some of the logistical expenses of his ministry activities. Elsewhere, Paul had alluded, with biting irony, to the fact that he had plundered the Macedonian churches (2 Cor 11:8–9), from whom he had snatched (ἐσύλησα)228 an ὀψώνιον, a term which, in documentary sources, frequently refers to a salary (in cash and/or in kind) or to an allowance.229 This would suggest that it mostly comprised material supplies and/or finances, which had sustained him personally in his missionary journeys. Given his usual entourage, it is also permissible to think that he had been provided with attendants to assist him with various aspects of his ministry. Concerning the Jerusalem collection, for instance, Paul had boasted to the Corinthians that the Macedonians had contributed beyond their means (παρὰ δύναµιν, 2 Cor 8:3) by even offering themselves for the task (ἀλλὰ ἑαυτοὺς ἔδωκαν, 2 Cor 8:5), which probably means that they had physically dispatched one or several assistants to accompany him to Jerusalem (perhaps the brothers mentioned in 2 Cor 8:18–25, 9:3–4).230 Epaphroditus himself had served a similar function as the Philippians’ apostolos and leitourgos dedicated to Paul’s need while in custody (ὑµῶν δὲ ἀπόστολον καὶ λειτουργὸν τῆς χρείας µου, 2:25), just as Onesimus would later do (or had earlier done) as well (Phlm 13).231 227 Cf. Berger, EDRL, s.v. consensus, 408; Taubenschlag, “societas,” 66; Watson, Obligations, 128–31; Crook, Law, 214–15. 228 The term is particularly vigorous and refers to the stripping of a soldier’s armour, or the forceful acquisition of someone else’s possessions through spoliation or legal seizure. Cf. LSJ, s.v. συλάω; MM, s.v. συλάω; BDAG, s.v. συλάω. 229 Cf. LSJ, s.v., ὀψώνιον; MM, s.v. ὀψώνιον; Deissmann, BS, 266; Cuvigny, O.Claud. III, p. 41; Rathbone, Economic Rationalism, 91–92; Horsley, NewDocs 2, 93, #65. 230 On Paul’s recommendation of the Macedonian delegates, see especially Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 48, 72–82. Cf. Downs, Offering, 138–40. 231 The exact chronology of Paul’s letters is a moot question which need not distract us at this point. It is easily conceivable that Paul’s letters to the Philippians and to Philemon were written around the same time during the same imprisonment, though it is diffi-

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

291

Similarly, we remain in the dark as to the frequency with which the Philippians had agreed to support Paul. Was it purely on an ad-hoc basis? Was it only as they were able to, just as with the Jerusalem collection (cf. 1 Cor 16:2)? Or had their intention been to send supplies and/or to provide personnel on a more regular basis? The fact that they had taken some time to come to his aid while in prison (cf. ἤδη ποτέ, 4:10) rather implies that they did not follow a rigorous schedule (or at least had failed to do so for whatever reason), though Paul’s muted sigh of relief seems to give away his expectation that, by virtue of their agreement (one has to assume), he may have felt entitled to more frequent support. The expression καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δίς certainly suggests that it had taken place more than once and that, as J. P. Dickson has aptly noted, “the gifts in Thessalonica were just the beginning of a series of contributions that kept arriving beyond the borders of Macedonia.”232 Still, his mind was not set on the contribution itself, he assures. Far be it from him (οὐχ ὅτι), that he should earnestly seek (ἐπιζητῶ) the Philippians’ δόµα. His sole interest was in the καρπός accruing to their account (τὸν πλεονάζοντα εἰς λόγον ὑµῶν). Those who think that Paul was ambivalent or averse towards financial support usually come to verse 17 with great enthusiasm. Here we have the most explicit “rejection of solicitation,”233 the clearest display of “nervous anxiety,” as he tries to exonerate himself from any possible charge of covetousness.234 He may have accepted their gift, but only reluctantly, some interpreters claim. In any case, “he has not asked for it, nor is he anxious to have it given.”235 Or, as C. H. Dodd has stated even more emphatically: “How much he hated taking it … He can scarcely bring himself to acknowledge that the money was welcome to him, and covers up his embarrassment by piling up technical terms of trade, as if to give the transaction a severely ‘business’ aspect.”236 We readily agree that neither in his letters, nor in the earliest received tradition (i.e., Acts), does Paul ever appear, or is ever portrayed, as intent on lucre. Yet, the fact that he would not demand anything itself seems to imply that he might have been in a position to request something (cf. 1 Cor 9). Or, as J.-F. Collange put it somewhat differently: “Verse 17 is most cult to ascertain which one was written first. For brief discussions on the question, see for instance Vielhauer, Geschichte, 166–74; O’Brien, Philippians, 19–26; Reumann, Philippians, 16–19. 232 Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 206 (emphasis added). 233 Peterman, Gift, 151. 234 Lightfoot, Philippians, 166. Cf. Peterlin, Philippians, 212. 235 Peterman, Gift, 151. Peterman (p. 152) further asserts that “Paul did not ask for support and χρείαν [in 4:16] should not be translated as a need/request.” One is eager to know what χρεία should be translated as (if not as need). Peterman offers no alternative. 236 Dodd, Studies, 71–72.

292

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

striking … This can only mean that the Philippians were able to imagine he did seek gifts; and how was that possible if their own gift was entirely spontaneous?”237 Collange thereby rightly discerned that the significance of the verse may not be exactly what most commentators make it to be. It is certainly not as plain as it may first appear, the intended connotations of δόµα, ἐπιζητῶ, and καρπός, which collocate with πλεονάζω and λόγος in a rather unique way, being particularly difficult to determine.238 Whilst the articular use of δόµα seems to point to something that would have been immediately identified by Paul and the Philippians, what he might have meant by the word is not as obvious to the distant reader. Paul could equally be referring, in general terms, to earlier contributions they had sent, though he might have spoken of δόµατα (cf. Matt 7:11; Luke 11:13; Eph 4:8), or, much more likely, to their latest leitourgia brought and performed by Epaphroditus.239 One also remains rather unsure about the implied connotation of this Pauline hapax legomenon, which, as our survey of the literary and documentary sources has highlighted, could vary quite significantly depending on the actual context. Paul could have thus meant the more general sense of gift, just as much as he could have intended the rarer sense of payment or allowance, as J. Gnilka and J. P. Sampley have understood,240 which would accord quite well with the economic register of the passage and especially with the verbs ἀπέχω or πληρόω in verse 18. Should the second connotation (i.e., payment or allowance) be retained, then one might reach a rather different interpretation of the verse, and, indeed, of the whole section. Similar questions could be raised concerning the verb ἐπιζητέω, which Paul preferred here to the simpler form ζητέω, a term no less familiar to him (e.g., Rom 2:7; 1 Cor 1:22, 4:2, 7:27; Phil 2:21), and to the more neutral verbs ἐρωτάω or αἰτέω. It is not entirely clear whether the preposition ἐπί should be considered as further intensifying the sense of ζητέω (i.e., as perfective), or simply as directing attention to the desired object (i.e., as locative), though one would expect it to have been repeated before the ac-

237

Collange, Philippians, 149. The terms πλεονάζω, δόµα, καρπός, and λόγος, are never found again in close proximity in the whole of the TLG corpus (except in later commentaries on Paul and other theological treatises, e.g., Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 26 [PG 35.1235, l. 55]). 239 Ellicott, who is followed by Eadie, rejects the understanding that τὸ δόµα refers to “the gift which they had [now] sent him,” and suggests that Paul had in mind “the gift in the particular case in question.” Ellicott’s distinction between the two is unclear, however. See Ellicott, Philippians, 102. Cf. Eadie, Philippians, 277; Vincent, Philippians, 149. 240 Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 179; Sampley, Partnership, 54. 238

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

293

cusative τὸν καρπόν.241 However Paul may have meant to use the verb here, it seems unlikely that he was not aware of the semantic force of the word, which he employed on only one other occasion to speak of Israel’s earnest pursuit of δικαιοσύνη in Romans 11:7 (cf. Rom 10:3). For it is hard to imagine that, in Romans 11:7, he had in mind Israel’s nonchalant quest for righteousness, of which he speaks elsewhere in even stronger terms (Ἰσραὴλ δὲ διώκων νόµον δικαιοσύνης, Rom 9:31).242 The assertiveness of the verb may be further illustrated by additional examples from the NT and the LXX, such as the episode recounting the crowds’ frenetic pursuit (ἐπεζήτουν) of Jesus, whom they clutched and refused to let go (κατεῖχον),243 after he had performed his first miracles in Capernaum (Luke 4:42). It is also apparent in the incidents relating Herod’s frenzied manhunt (ἐπιζητήσας) of Peter (Acts 12:19), or Saul’s murderous attempts on David’s life (ἐπιζητεῖ τὴν ψυχήν µου, 1 Sam 20:1; cf. Esth 8:7).244 While one could think that the connotation of ἐπιζητέω in these passages stands at the farthest end of the semantic spectrum, it is actually encountered in a number of documentary sources as well. The well-known papyrus on customs regulations adduced by J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, in which a tax-collector is given the right to require the unloading of a ship to search its cargo (ἐ̣[ὰν] δ̣ὲ̣ τελώνης ἐκφορ[τισθ]ῆναι τὸ πλοῖον ἐπιζητήσῃ, ὁ ἔµπορος ἐκφορτιζέ[τ]ω, ll. 6–9),245 is a particularly suggestive example (P.Oxy. I 36; A.D. II–III).246 Yet, this is not the most common use of the verb. More frequently, it is found in the formulaic expression ἐπιζητοῦντί σοι (i.e., in answer to your enquiry), whereby an administrative subordinate deferentially responds to a superior official who,

241 Cf. L&N, s.v. ἐπιζητέω 27.42; Robertson, Grammar, 563; Moulton, Grammar, 111–15; Moule, Idiom-Book, 88. Moule does not include ἐπιζητέω in his list of compound verbs but comments: “ἐπι-, like δια-, does tend to retain some trace of its prepositional, directional sense, which makes its intensifying quality easier to account for than is the case with some of the other prepositions.” Meyer prefers to retain the directive aspect of ἐπί. Meyer, Philippians, 224. 242 The verb διώκω is indeed commonly employed in reference to military activities or persecutions. Cf. LSJ, s.v. διώκω; BDAG, s.v. διώκω. 243 The term is particularly strong and implies forceful restraint or, in some occasions, the legal ownership of some assets (e.g., Gen 39:20, 42:19; Exod 32:13; Josh 1:11; Acts 2:40; Rom 7:6). Cf. LSJ, s.v. κατέχω; BDAG, s.v. κατέχω; MM, s.v. κατέχω. 244 Other equally suggesting examples are found in Matt 6:32, 12:39, 16:4; Luke 12:30; Heb 11:14, 13:14. 245 I.e., if the tax-collector requires that the ship be unloaded (to search its cargo; cf. ll. 10–15), the merchant shall unload (it). 246 Cf. MM, s.v., ἐπιζητέω; Johnson, Roman Egypt, 606–607, #353.

294

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

by virtue of his authority, has requested a financial report on the management of some assets or on the collection of some taxes.247 Whether Paul was actually cognizant of this ordinary formula or not, it is difficult to imagine that he would not have been familiar with the semantic force of ἐπιζητέω, or that he would have employed the term informally, which could have caused some serious miscommunication. The fact that he repeated the verb twice within the same verse makes it all the more improbable that he did not choose the word carefully. The suggestion that Paul herein declines tactfully the Philippians’ δόµα, and politely requests their καρπός instead, thus somewhat misses the insistent tone of the whole sentence. It is more likely that the Philippians understood Paul as saying I do not require the δόµα, but I require the καρπός, which suggests altogether different socio-economic dynamics at play here. As Collange’s above-cited remark has appositely pointed out, Paul’s emphatic assertion that he was not demanding (οὐχ ὅτι), by virtue of his authority or some obligation, the Philippians’ δόµα seems to imply that he may have been in a position to do so. The δόµα may thus not have been a gift at all, but rather something that he felt he had a right to claim, though he was ready to relinquish that right. That is, the δόµα could well stand for some payment or allowance that was due to him on the basis of some agreement, most likely their κοινωνία, i.e., their partnership. This said, it remains to be determined whether καρπός should be considered as having an economic connotation as well. As we have highlighted in our earlier philological survey, the term very rarely adopts economic overtones and should certainly not be viewed as a technical term per se. At most, it may be simply understood in the sense of fruit or profit of one’s activity, be it agricultural or commercial. Commentators who take it to signify profit, credit, or even interest generally follow, with or without acknowledging it, Moulton and Milligan’s lexical entry in which they suggested that it has a sense close to that of καρπεία, i.e., usufruct or profit.248 As we have noted earlier, they themselves relied on H. C. G. Moule, who, upon consulting John Chrysostom’s commentary, deduced that the latter had understood καρπός to be equivalent to the τόκος, i.e., the interest, accruing to a financial account. To Moule, this seemed to suggest that Paul had used καρπός in a financial technical sense. Hence, he proposed to

247 E.g., BGU XII 2134; P.Amh. II 140; SB VI 9169; P.Oxy. LX 4089. Cf. MM, s.v., ἐπιζητέω; LSJ, s.v. ἐπιζητέω, ἐπιζήτηµα, ἐπιζήτησις. 248 E.g., Michael, Philippians, 224; Hawthorne, Philippians (1983), 206; Martin, Philippians, 183; Hansen, Philippians, 321. Cf. MM, s.v. καρπός; LSJ, s.v. καρπεία, s.v. καρπεῖον = καρπός.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

295

translate the latter part of the verse as follows: “the interest which is accruing to your credit.”249 As H. A. W. Meyer cogently argued long ago, however, this entire interpretation is questionable. Indeed, “there is no need to explain καρπός as interest … because it is difficult to see why Paul, if he used this figure, should not have applied to it the proper term (τόκος), and because the idea of interest is quite alien to that of the δόµα.”250 It should be further remarked that Chrysostom’s homily, on which Moule depended, may well only reveal what Chrysostom thought Paul may have meant, but not necessarily what Paul actually meant.251 It is in any case not certain that Chrysostom intended what Moule suggested, for he simply wrote: ὁ καρπὸς ἐκείνοις τίκτεται.252 There is little evidence that, in the immediate context, he considered that the verb τίκτω had a more specific economic connotation here, i.e., to generate financial interest (τόκος), even though there seems to be an etymological relation between τίκτω and ὁ τόκος.253 In fact, Chrysostom never uses the term in this sense in his fifteen homilies on Philippians.254 It is thus difficult to comprehend why Moule concluded that “is it probable that Chrysostom’s τίκτεται implies that he, a Greek, took St Paul to be using here the language of the money market.”255 Might it not have been simpler to argue that ὁ καρπός acquires an economic connotation because of its collocation with the prepositional phrase εἰς λόγον? It is precisely the syntactical connection of καρπός with εἰς λόγον which gives the noun an economic flavour, and which undermines the alternative view propounded by J. Gnilka and E. Lohmeyer that it has an eschatological sense.256 The claim that καρπός should be understood as such because it 249

Moule, Philippians, 88 (italics original). Meyer, Philippians, 225 (italics original). 251 See Moule, Philippians, 88. Kennedy later made the same deduction. Kennedy, “Financial,” 43. As Allen has rightly noted, throughout Chrysostom’s homilies it is sometimes “difficult to discern whether we are dealing with Chrysostom’s ideas, those of Paul as transmitted by the homilist in paraphrase and extrapolation, or objections real or imaginary from the congregation and other groups.” See John Chrysostom, Homilies on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (trans. P. Allen; SBLWGRW 16; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), xv. 252 I.e., the fruit is produced for these (i.e., the Philippians). John Chrysostom, Hom. Phil. 15 (PG 62.291, l. 56). 253 Cf. LSJ, s.v. τίκτω 4.; s.v. τόκος. The noun τόκος can also refer to the offspring of human beings or animals. See Chantraine, DELG, s.v. τίκτω, 1118; Frisk, Wörterbuch 2:899, s.v. τίκτω. 254 Cf. John Chrysostom, Hom. Phil. 1–15 (PG 62.181, 206, 226, 231, 236, 243, 246, 266, 269–270, 283, 286, 291, 294–296). 255 Moule, Philippians, 88. 256 Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 179; Lohmeyer, Philipper, 186. Meyer had already hinted that it may refer to the “divine recompense at the judgment (2 Cor. ix. 6).” Meyer, Philippians, 225 (italics original). 250

296

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

always has an eschatological connotation in Pauline literature (cf. Rom 1:13, 6:21–22, 15:28; Gal 5:22; Phil 1:11, 22), and in Philippians 1:11 in particular, is simply untrue (cf. 1 Cor 9:7). Furthermore, as L. Bormann has appositely remarked: “[d]ie eschatologische Bedeutung in Phil 1,11 wird durch die Genetivverbindung mit δικαιοσύνη eingetragen, nicht durch das Wort καρπός selbst, wie überhaupt festzustellen ist, daß καρπός seine begriffliche Bestimmung erst durch ein Attribut oder durch den Kontext erhält” (cf. 1 Cor 9:7).257 Still, it is possible that καρπός might have been meant more figuratively, that is, as referring to the spiritual (though not necessarily eschatological) fruit accruing to the Philippians’ tally of good deeds. This is in fact how the majority of translators and commentators interpret the verse. Taking δόµα as gift and καρπός as the “spiritual investment,”258 the “advantage,”259 the profit or benefit,260 “die Frucht des rechten Glaubens [der Philipper],”261 or simply the fruit,262 accruing to their heavenly account, most argue that Paul is herein resorting to “a further financial metaphor.”263 Even J. P. Sampley understands the verse as signifying that the Philippians are gathering “fruit for their more important account,”

257

Bormann, Philippi, 154–55. Yet Bormann does not really follow his own critique as he suggests, with relative disregard for the immediate context, that the term stems from the Wisdom tradition (“aus der weisheitlichen Tradition”). For, he contends, it refers to the “christliche ‘Ethik’ in Wirklichkeit gelebte Eschatologie,” and should thus be understood “als Lebensäußerung eschatologischer Existenz.” It is not altogether clear to us what distinction Bormann herein wishes to introduce. 258 Hawthorne, Philippians (1983), 206. 259 BDAG, s.v. καρπός 2. 260 NAS (profit), Bible de Jérusalem (le bénéfice), Zürcher Bibel 2008 (der Ertrag). 261 Glombitza, “Der Dank,” 138. 262 1598 Clementine Vulgate (fructum), ASV, RSV, NKJ, ESV, 1910 Bible Louis Segond (fruit), Nouvelle Edition Genève, Neue Luther Bibel (Frucht), Münchener Neues Testament, Schlachter Bibel 2000. Vetus Latina manuscripts unanimously have fructum as well. Cf. Frede, Philippenses, 251–52. 263 Bockmuehl, Philippians, 265. Cornelius a Lapide certainly takes the metaphor seriously: rursum significant quemque homine talem librum rationum habere respectu Dei … Dicit ergo quemque Christianum sibi talem rationum cum Deo ineundarum librum conficere non ex charta, sed reipsa, ipsisq; factis … in quo quasi una parte scribat ea, que a Deo accepit, altera quae in Dei honorum & obsequium expendit, puta actus virtutum, praesertim eleemosynae (i.e., again they signify that each individual has such an accounting book with respect to God … Therefore, he says that each Christian keeps for him/herself such an account with God not made of paper, but in reality, and by themselves, in deeds, … , an account in which, as it were, he would write on one side that which he received from God, while on the other side that which he spent in honour and obedience to God, that is, an act of virtue, particularly, alms). Cornelius a Lapide, Pauli epistolas, 609.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

297

which is “with God.”264 The idea thereby implied is that their support of his mission, whilst diminishing their earthly economic capital, would have contributed to the increase of their heavenly capital, which would appear to have been Paul’s greater concern (ἀλλὰ ἐπιζητῶ), a concern that may have been motivated by Jesus’ exhortation to store treasures in the heavens and not on earth (cf. Matt 6:19–21).265 After all, he seems to have envisaged that the Jerusalem collection followed a similar principle. The Macedonians’ material benefactions towards the poor in Jerusalem contributed to their own spiritual benefits, resulting in a harvest of righteousness on their behalf (αὐξήσει τὰ γενήµατα τῆς δικαιοσύνης ὑµῶν, ἐν παντὶ πλουτιζόµενοι εἰς πᾶσαν, 2 Cor 9:8–13).266 This suggestive reading of the passage is nonetheless confronted with a particular exegetical difficulty that is usually not given sufficient consideration. It needs to be noted that the last clause of the verse, τὸν πλεονάζοντα εἰς λόγον ὑµῶν, is not a result or purpose clause in the subjunctive mood, but an adjectival, participial clause in the present indicative mood which modifies the direct object (τὸν καρπόν) of the main verb ἐπιζητῶ. It is therefore inaccurate to understand the second part of the verse in the sense of I require that fruit may accrue to your account (consecutive), or I require for the fruit to accrue to your account (telic),267 even though the notion of purpose is somewhat lexically inherent to (ἐπι)ζητῶ (which is often used with a complementary infinitive).268 Rather, it should be read as I require the fruit that is currently accruing to your account.269 The difference is subtle but significant. Paul has actually not written ἐπιζητῶ ἵνα/ ὅπως ὁ καρπός πλεονάζῃ εἰς λόγον ὑµῶν (cf. 1 Cor 14:12; Matt 26:59), or ἐπιζητῶ τὸν καρπὸν (ὥστε τὸ/ τοῦ) πλεονάζειν/ πλεονάσαι εἰς λόγον ὑµῶν (cf. Matt 2:3; Acts 13:7), or even ἐπιζητῶ πλεονάζοντα/ πλεονάσοντα τὸν καρπὸν εἰς λόγον ὑµῶν (cf. Luke 13:7), whereby the (present/ future) adverbial participles πλεονάζοντα/ πλεονάσοντα might have conveyed a sense 264 Sampley, Partnership, 57. Hermesdorf, likewise, did not depart from the more traditional understanding, considering δόµα as “het geschenk” (i.e., the gift) and καρπός as “het geestelijkvoordeel” (i.e., the spiritual benefit). Hermesdorf, “Paulus,” 254–55. 265 Cf. Meyer, Philippians, 225. 266 Cf. Harrison, Paul’s Language, 294–332; Downs, Offering, 131–46. See also more recently L. L. Welborn, “‘That There May Be Equality’: The Contexts and Consequences of a Pauline Ideal,” NTS 59.1 (2013): 73–90. 267 Contra Plummer, Philippians, 100 (“I am desiring that the fruit of your generosity should accumulate to your account in heaven”); Fee, Philippians, 436 (“ I am looking for what may be credited to your account”). 268 Cf. Robertson, Grammar, 1078; Blass, Grammar, §69.4, p. 225; Wallace, Grammar, 598–99, 636. 269 Cf. Moule, Philippians, 88 (“The fruit which is abounding to your account”); O’Brien, Philippians, 538 (“the interest that accrues to your account”).

298

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

of purpose or expectation.270 In other words, there does not seem to be any direct (or implied) relation of cause and effect between the δόµα given and the καρπός received. Rather, the present indicative, and therefore contemporaneous, attributive participle τὸν πλεονάζοντα suggests that Paul is intent on the καρπός that is presently accruing to their account (independently from the δόµα). Read in the broader context of 4:15–18, it becomes quite difficult to escape the impression that the καρπός herein stands for the fruit or profit that is being currently generated by, presumably, some kind of economic activity, be it commercial or agricultural. This is exactly what Fleury had initially proposed. Taking δόµα to mean gift, in contrast with δόσις which stands for “versement” (i.e., payment) in 4:15, he understood Paul as rejecting charity (οὐχ ὅτι ἐπιζητῶ τὸ δόµα) and requesting (ἐπιζητῶ) instead his share of the revenue (τὸν καρπόν) accumulating to the account of the societas (τὸν πλεονάζοντα εἰς λόγον ὑµῶν).271 For Fleury, Paul felt that he was entitled to a portion of the profits of the commercial societas that he had established with the Philippians in order to meet his needs (χρεία): “l’apôtre était fondé à prélever en tout temps sa part dans la société qui lui doit l’entretien, qui doit pourvoir à ses dépenses et tout particulièrement quand il est dans le besoin.”272 Thus, he translated verse 17 as follows: “Non que je requiers l’aumône, mais je requiers le revenu qui vient en plus dans votre compte.”273 Fleury’s original analysis never made inroads into mainstream scholarship, even though his desire to grapple with the economic overtones of Paul’s language has much to commend. As we have noted in our initial review, however, what is perhaps most problematic with his proposed reading is that Paul’s κοινωνία with the Philippians did not amount to a commercial partnership, i.e., a κοινωνία εἰς τὸ σκηνοποιόν/ τὴν πορφυροπωλικήν/ τὴν κοινὴν τέχνην/ ἐργασίαν/ πραγµατείαν,274 what Romans would have considered as a societas alicuius negotiationis. For it consisted of a κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, whose benefits could therefore not have been economic. Nevertheless, as we have duly acknowledged in our introduction, Fleury’s interpretation has opened a suggestive avenue to con270 Future participles (to express intent or purpose) are in any case extremely rare in the NT and are almost restricted to Acts. Cf. Blass, Grammar, §61.4, p. 202; Moulton, Grammar, 230. 271 Fleury, “société,” 54. 272 Fleury, “société,” 53. 273 Fleury, “société,” 54. 274 E.g., P.Cair.Masp. II 67158 (A.D. 568): ὁ[µ]ολογοῦµεν ἡµεῖς οἱ προγεγραµµένοι … συνεργάζασθαι ἀλλήλοις εἰς τὴν κοινὴν ἡµῶν πραγµατείαν̣ (i.e., we, the aforementioned so and so, agree … to work together in a common business; ll. 10–13). Cf. FIRA2 3.158; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 393.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

299

ceive of Paul’s relationship with the Philippians, and compellingly invites us to try to position ourselves from the socio-cultural perspective of both the author and the audience. If, as we shall argue more decisively in our final chapter, this κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον did correspond to some kind of societas, then we might be able to discern more precisely the socioeconomic dynamics herein implied, and thus shed some light on this difficult verse. However, this necessitates that we herein anticipate some of the conclusions which we shall elaborate in our eighth chapter. Within a Graeco-Roman model of partnership, it was required of partners that they contribute a share of the human (e.g., slaves, labour), material (e.g., tools, facilities), or financial resources, which were to be employed towards the implementation of the societas. As we have pointed out, Paul’s partnership with the Philippians was primarily concerned with the εὐαγγέλιον (cf. 1:5), and had for aim its progress (προκοπή; cf. 1:12), by means of its public proclamation (κήρυγµα; cf. 1:13–18) and the establishment of faith communities. Within this broad framework, the Philippians’ δόµα, whether it was meant as an instalment, an allowance, or an extra donation (on top of a regular allowance),275 would have represented their own contribution to the account of the societas. It would have constituted their share of the material and/or financial capital of the partnership which was to be employed to meet its operational costs. The καρπός, on the other hand, would have corresponded to the non-economic fruit or benefit generated by its activities, that is, the effective propagation of the εὐαγγέλιον and the expansion of Christ’s ἐκκλησία.276 Read from this socio-economic perspective, verse 17 becomes more intelligible. Paul thereby signifies that his mind is not set on the Philippians’ contribution per se, which would have negated his claim in 4:11–13 to be αὐτάρκης. It would have also represented a breach of faith (fides), since it would have implied misusing the resources of the societas to serve his personal interest, which was reprehensible (cf. Justinian, Inst. 3.25.4).277 Rather, he wishes to reassure them that his intent remains well and truly on the καρπός of their κοινωνία, that is, on the outcome of their joint missionary enterprise, which, as he has reported at the beginning of his letter (1:12–18), continues to make some progress despite his present circumstances. His chains have been no impediment to his preaching of the gos275

ter.

276

Cf. the inscription McCabe Theangela 8 (ca. 400 B.C.) examined in our third chap-

Cf. Dig. 17.2.8: quaestus enim intellegitur, qui ex opera cuius descendit (i.e., profit is to be understood as that which comes from the efforts of a partner; Trans. Watson). 277 In Inst. 3.25.4, for instance, Justinian explains that if a partner withdraws from a societas in order to enjoy its benefits all by himself (ut obveniens aliquod lucrum solus habeat), he shall nonetheless be obligated to share with the other partners as well. Cf. Zimmermann, Obligations, 460–65.

300

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

pel, which is still bearing fruit to the account of the societas, and thus to their own account as well (cf. εἰς λόγον ὑµῶν, 4:17). This interpretation naturally raises the question as to the probability that the Philippians would have entered non-economic gains into their tabulae (cf. εἰς λόγον, 4:17). It seems rather difficult to imagine that non-financial entities could have been committed to a ledger, unless one assumes that this λόγος refers to some other type of document in which the progress of Paul’s mission would have been recorded in terms of the number of converts won or of communities established, which is unlikely. At this stage, it seems more sensible to envisage that Paul is beginning to speak figuratively. His partnership with the Philippians did involve some form of accounting of the sums collected (λήµψεις) and spent (δόσεις) to cover its expenditures (cf. 4:15). However, whatever non-monetary profits may have been generated through their combined efforts, they could not have been written into a physical ledger. They could have only been entered into an imaginary account, some mental record, as it were. Pursuing in verse 18b, Paul then draws from the language of the LXX and compares their recent contribution (τὰ παρ᾽ ὑµῶν) to the pleasant fragrance (ὀσµὴν εὐωδίας) of a burnt offering to God.278 He does not want them to dwell solely on the earthly, momentary, and perishable nature of their material and/or financial participation, but wishes to focus their attention onto its spiritual dimension and eternal significance as well: ultimately, it represents an acceptable sacrifice (θυσίαν δεκτήν) in the eyes of God, who will richly repay (πληρώσει) them and supply their every need (πᾶσαν χρείαν) according to Christ’s riches (κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος αὐτοῦ ἐν δόξῃ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 4:19). Overall, then, we are not entirely opposed to the idea that Paul employs figurative language here in 4:17b and 4:18b–19, as well as in several of his other epistles. His literary creativity is certainly not in question. However, we disagree with interpreters, such as Cornelius a Lapide, for whom Paul’s metaphor commences in verse 15 and continues through verses 17 to 19.279 To our mind, Paul’s theological rationalisation of their involvement in his mission does not begin until the very end of verse 17. In 4:18b–19, he then takes their eyes away from the earthly dimension of their κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, and draws their attention to the spiritual significance of their involvement. Yet, this in no way invalidates the socio-economic reality and effectiveness of their partnership. 278

Cf. Gen 8:21; Exod 29:18, 25, 41; Lev 17:4, 19:5; etc. Cornelius a Lapide, Pauli epistolas, 609: Persistit enim in metaphora librorum computuum, quos conficiunt mercatores ut ratio receptorum et expensorum constet (i.e., for he persists in the metaphor of accounting books, which merchants keep in order that an account of receipts and expenses be established). 279

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

301

7.3.5 Paul’s Formal Acknowledgement of the Philippians’ Contribution (4:18) In verse 18, Paul finally comes to the formal acknowledgement of the Philippians’ leitourgia and resorts to what most recognise as a terminus technicus, the verb ἀπέχω, whose occurrence here is particularly striking. As our philological survey has amply illustrated, there can be no doubt that the verb pertains to accounting terminology and commonly expresses the receipt of some money or merchandise that was owed on the basis of some economic transaction. This immediately creates the impression that verse 18 is modelled on the formulaic language of ordinary receipts.280 In fairness to earlier commentators, it should be noted that this observation is not completely original. Chrysostom, once again, was one of the first to point out in his homily the sense of obligation implied by the verb: καὶ ἔδειξεν ὅτι ὀφειλή ἐστι τὸ πρᾶγµα (τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν Ἀπέχω).281 Erasmus was equally discerning as he remarked in his annotationes: Nam ἀπέχω est recipere ex aliquot ueluti censum aut reditum ex aruis.282 A century later, Cornelius a Lapide would likewise observe: Graece ἀπέχω, id est recepi ea quae ad me misistis quasi censum, & stipendium debitum praedicationi meae apud vos.283 Meanwhile, H. Grotius would comment: Haec est ἀποχή (acceptilatio), quae Epaphroditi fidem liberat.284 Although this understanding has failed to convince later scholars such as J. A. Eadie, who swiftly dismissed it as “[a] strange view,”285 several recent commentators have concurred. For instance, C. H. Dodd, J. H. Moulton, and G. Milligan, understood the verse to mean: “I have received payment; my account is settled.”286 F. W. Beare translated: “I have received payment in full”287; whilst 280 This impression is all the more heightened if one considers 4:10–20 to be a separate letter. Cf. Koester, History, 136. 281 I.e., for he showed that the deed was an obligation, for this is what ἀπέχω means. John Chrysostom, Hom. Phil. 15 (PG 62.292, ll. 14–16). 282 I.e., for ἀπέχω means to recover from someone (something) such as some tribute or some revenue from the fields. Erasmus, annotations, 440. 283 I.e., in Greek, ἀπέχω means I received what you sent to me, as some kind of tribute and stipend due to me for my preaching to you. Cornelius a Lapide, Pauli epistolas, 609. 284 I.e., this is an ἀποχή (acceptilatio), which discharges Epaphroditus. Grotius, Annotationes, 109. Cf. Bengel, Gnomon, 156. Note: In Roman law, acceptilatio referred to the oral formula releasing someone from a debt contracted verbally (through stipulatio). The debtor asked his creditor if he had received what had been promised: Quod ego tibi promisi, habesne acceptum? To which the latter replied: habeo (Gaius, Inst. 3.169). See also the section De acceptilatione in Dig. 46.4. Cf. R. Leonhard, “Acceptilatio,” PW[1] 1:138; Berger, EDRL, s.v. acceptilatio, 339–40; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 425; Alan Watson, Studies in Roman Private Law (London: Hambledon, 1991), 193–218. 285 Eadie, Philippians, 279. Cf. Meyer, Philippians, 226; Ewald, Philipper, 235 (n. 1). 286 Dodd, “Pauline Illustrations,” 295. Cf. MM, s.v. πληρόω. 287 Beare, Philippians, 149.

302

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

J. H. Michael rendered: “your debt to me is fully paid and more than paid!”288 These modern exegetes belong to a first group of interpreters who acknowledge the technicality of the term, yet do not fully explore the pragmatic function and socio-economic implication of its usage. P. O’Brien’s exposition of this verse is a case in point. On the one hand, he endorses the translation of the Good News Bible: “Here, then, is my receipt for everything.”289 On the other hand, he concludes that, as “ἀπέχω forms an antithesis to the preceding ἐπιζητῶ and provides a further reason (δέ) for not seeking any further gift from the Philippians,” Paul is thus “expressing his gratitude in words that have a touch of humour to them.”290 One is compelled to ask, however, what is humorous about such manner of speech. In what way(s) responding to a gift by appearing to produce a formal receipt could be amusing to the recipient and the benefactor? O’Brien provides no explanation.291 Dodd’s observation that Paul herein “covers his sense of discomfort with a half-humorous tone,” and thus pretends “to be very formal and ‘businesslike’ about the matter,” is equally unpersuasive.292 Like O’Brien, Dodd does not explicate why Paul, or anyone else for that matter, would choose to acknowledge a gift by means of an invoicing term, and yet manage not to offend the donor(s). Such scrupulous reckoning of the gifts exchanged would have been perceived by someone like Cicero or Seneca as a petty and grudging attitude amongst friends (cf. Amic. 16.58; Seneca, Lucil. 81.18), one that would have failed to promote any kind of intimacy between the involved parties.293 By contrast, a second group of commentators prefer to pass quickly over the significance of the verb and consider its usage as purely meta288

Michael, Philippians, 208, 224. Cf. Spicq, “ἀπέχω,” TLNT 1:165; Sampley, Partnership, 53. 289 O’Brien, Philippians, 540. Cf. Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 179; Hawthorne, Philippians (1983), 206; Silva, Philippians, 238; Witherington III, Friendship, 125; Collins, Images, 48. 290 O’Brien, Philippians, 540 (emphasis added). Others have also found Paul’s use of commercial terms rather playful or humorous. See Kennedy, “Financial,” 44; Plummer, Philippians, 103; Michael, Philippians, 212; Hendriksen, Philippians, 208; Caird, Letters, 154; Martin, Philippians, 184; Silva, Philippians, 206. 291 O’Brien is only partly responsible for this unhelpful remark. Deissmann seems to have been the first to make the suggestion. Deissmann, LAE, 112. 292 Dodd, “Pauline Illustrations,” 294. 293 As seen earlier, Cicero disapproved of the accurate reckoning of gifts and favours exchanged. Seneca, on the other hand, expected interests (usura) to be added to the beneficium to be repaid: Ingratus est, qui beneficium reddit sine usura. Itaque huius quoque rei habebitur ratio, cum conferentur accepta et expensa (i.e., ungrateful is the man who repays a benefit without interests. So an account of this matter should be kept too, when receipts and expenses are tabulated).

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

303

phorical.294 For reasons we shall elaborate, this interpretation is just as unsatisfactory, however. As we have highlighted in the introduction of this chapter, the major issue is that Paul has actually received something concrete from the Philippians, which he acknowledges. If we understand the term metaphor to refer to a figure of speech whereby a word or phrase conveying a particular idea is applied to a different word or phrase to suggest an analogous idea (the traditional view), or a figure of speech whereby a conceptual domain is expressed in terms of another (the cognitive linguistic view), then there is no reason to take Paul’s usage of ἀπέχω as metaphorical here.295 For Paul has not transferred any different connotation to the verb. Proponents of a metaphorical interpretation implicitly admit this point since they accept the basic lexical sense to receive (in full), even though they reject any economic connotation.296 This makes one wonder whether some commentators do not instead mean figurative (i.e., not literal) when they use the term metaphorical. In the context of 4:10–20, a metaphorical acknowledgement of the Philippians’ (potentially pecuniary) contribution would have been possible if, for instance, Paul had used the term χορτάζω (cf. 4:12), i.e., to eat one’s fill, to convey his sense of satisfaction and satiety with the monetary gift. A metaphorical usage of ἀπέχω, on the other hand, would be more conceivable if Paul had received something as abstract as love or empathy instead of some material goods. But even then, the emphasis would have been placed on the affection being expressed, which the use of economic term would have served to compare, quite vulgarly, to some commercial commodity. Yet, unlike the lovers of Plautus’ Mostellaria play, Paul is not alluding here to some intangible form of affection that he might have received from the Philippians in return for the love he would have lavished upon them, so that both parties would have been even and their loveaccount settled.297 Such is not the context and situation, since Paul, as we 294

E.g., Plummer, Philippians, 104; Peterman, Gift, 143; Fee, Philippians, 451; Hansen, Philippians, 322–23. 295 An elaborate discussion of metaphor theory is beyond the scope of this section. For a useful introduction see Zoltán Kövecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), vii–xi, 3–13. Cf. OED3, s.v. metaphor: “1. A figure of speech in which a name or descriptive word or phrase is transferred to an object or action different from, but analogous to, that to which it is literally applicable”; “2. Something regarded as representative or suggestive of something else, esp. as a material emblem of an abstract quality, condition, notion, etc.”Accessed January 2013. Online: http://www. oed.com/view/Entry/117328. 296 E.g., O’Brien, Philippians, 539–40; Fee, Philippians, 450–51; Bockmuehl, Philippians, 265–66; Peterman, Gift, 142–44, 161; Hansen, Philippians, 322–23. 297 Most. 1.3.304: Bene igitur ratio accepti atque expensi inter nos conuenit: Tu me amas, ego te amo (i.e., the account of receipts and expenditures between us balances well then: you love me and I love you).

304

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

have stressed several times, is acknowledging his receipt of some material and/or financial support. G. W. Peterman nonetheless insists that ἀπέχω cannot have its usual technical sense here because Philippians is not a commercial document. He further asserts that, since “terminology which figures in technical financial contexts was also used to describe the dynamics of exchange relationships in the Greco-Roman world,” we may consider them as “metaphors” when found in “a social context” such as Philippians 4 where they “are being used socially.”298 We have already drawn attention in our introduction to some of the difficulties of Peterman’s thesis and have called into question his philological methodology. We may herein further remark that Peterman’s identification of the supposedly restricted range of application of the term is not entirely accurate, for we have found it used in contexts that are not specifically commercial (although, by and large, that is the case).299 There is therefore no valid reason to consider ἀπέχω as employed metaphorically in this passage. What we need to ask ourselves instead is what pragmatic function Paul intended the verb to have, and what impact it might have had on the audience. D. Peterlin thus poses the right question: “Why did Paul use the terminology in the first place” when he “could have chosen less technical terms to express gratitude for the monetary gifts”?300 Why indeed? The prevalence of the verb in commercial and fiscal documents from the Greek East leads us to believe that the Philippians would have immediately grasped its economic connotation. The objection that the Philippians would not have done so because they may have never come across an Egyptian papyrus or ostracon is not acceptable since the term has been found in countless manumission inscriptions from Greece, as well as in Judean and Italian documents.301 The verb was simply too widespread for them not to have been familiar with or for Paul to have employed it unintentionally or casually.

298

Peterman, Gift, 143. See for instance the private letters P.Wisc. II 68 and BGU XVI 2606, or the cheirographa P.Aberd. 63 and 65; P.Lund. VI 7; O.Claud. III 417. 300 Peterlin, Philippians, 153. 301 On the influence of Roman legal diplomatics over Greek documents from the fareastern provinces, see for instance Hannah M. Cotton, “‘Diplomatics’ or External Aspects of the Legal Documents from the Judaean Desert: Prolegomena,” in Rabbinic Law in its Roman and Near Eastern Context (ed. C. Hezser; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 49–61; E. A. Meyer, “Diplomatics, Law and Romanisation in the Documents from the Judaean Desert,” in Beyond Dogmatics: Law and Society in the Roman World (eds. J. W. Cairns and P. J. du Plessis; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), 53–82. Cf. Johnston, Roman Law, 10–11. 299

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

305

As a tradesman himself, Paul must have known exactly what the term signified and was not foreign to its specific connotation.302 This impression is further reinforced by the fact that he did not use the aorist form ἀπέσχον but the first-person singular, present tense ἀπέχω, precisely the form which is most often used in a formulaic way in documentary sources. Had he wanted to express his receipt of their contribution more informally, he could have simply written, in the present or aorist tense, ἔχω/ἔσχον, δέχοµαι/δεξάµην, λαµβάνω/ἔλαβον, or κοµίζοµαι/ἐκόµισα. It seems that, by resorting to the form ἀπέχω, Paul instead wanted to insist on the fact that he had received what was intended for him by virtue of some obligation: he was in possession of all of it (ἀπέχω πάντα), for he had been paid in full (πεπλήρωµαι, 4:18).303 This interpretation is further suggested by Paul’s phrasing here, which uncannily resembles the following formula frequently observed in commercial papyri and manumission inscriptions: ἀπέχω τινα πᾶσαν ἐκ πλήρους.304 The common expression ἐκ πλήρους is of course absent from 4:18, but its sense is conveyed by the verb πληρόω, whose occurrence right after ἀπέχω is no less remarkable. Although the term is commonly thought to mean simply to fill (with), to make full, to fulfil,305 and is usually translated as to be well/amply supplied,306 we have shown that it could often have a more specific economic connotation in documentary sources, i.e., to pay in full.307 In context, and in view of the collocation with ἀπέχω and περισσεύω, the latter sense should probably be retained here (as well as in verse 19), since the syntax of verse 18 would otherwise be rather cum302

Paul may have been equally well acquainted with the terminology of building contracts. See Bradley J. Bitner, “Constitution and Covenant: Paul’s Engagement with Roman Law in 1 Corinthians 1:1–4:6” (Ph.D. diss., Macquarie University, 2013), 227–333 (esp. 254–55). 303 Cf. Préaux, “ἈΠΈΧΩ,” 143–45. Lohmeyer had already discerned the sense of obligation in 4:15: “Darum tritt auch die Gabe der Philipper jetzt wie früher unter den Gesichtspunkt einer pflichtgemäßen Leistung, und dieser ist in dem Ausdruck vom ‘Geben und Nehmen’ deutlich genug bezeichnet.” Lohmeyer, Philipper, 185. Peterman misses this point when, judging from the absence of ὀφείλω, he concludes: “The text of Philippians, however, contains no mention of debt or obligation, neither on the Philippians’ part nor on Paul’s.” Peterman, Gift, 148. 304 E.g., P.Lond. II 154; P.Mich. V 253, 269, 274; FD 3.6.5, 3.6.6; GDI II 2116. Deissmann had already noted the resemblance of Paul’s use of ἀπέχω and πάντα with similar collocations in contemporary receipts. Deissmann, LAE, 112 (n. 1). 305 Cf. LSJ, s.v. πληρόω; Preisigke, WB 2:320–22; BDAG, s.v. πληρόω; MM, s.v. πληρόω; L&N, s.v. πληρόω; Muraoka, Lexicon, s.v. πληρόω. 306 See ESV, ASV, NAS, NIV, RSV, NKJ. Cf. 1910 Bible Louis Segond, Bible de Jérusalem, Nouvelle Edition Genève, Neue Luther Bibel, Schlachter Bibel 2000, Zürcher Bibel 2008. 307 See the relevant section in our third chapter.

306

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

bersome and redundant (i.e., I have received everything, I abound and am full).308 Overall, as most commentators acknowledge, it is this unusual concentration of terms with an economic connotation that gives Paul’s discourse a markedly business resonance and locates it within a particular economic register, a register which, one has to assume, would have been suitable vis-à-vis the audience as well.309 For as Peterlin has again rightly remarked, Paul was not only himself “sufficiently well-versed in terminology of financial transactions,” but he also “clearly expected them to comprehend the terminology.”310 In pragmatic terms, and if a metaphorical interpretation is set aside, Paul’s language thus conveys the strong impression that an actual business transaction had taken place: he acknowledged that he had been supplied with or paid whatever was due to him by virtue of some obligation, be it moral or contractual, or both.311 B. J. Capper has grasped this well: “The usage seems to imply that the sum Paul acknowledged was not merely a gift but a debt, in that Paul confirms its receipt as would a vendor the sum received for the thing sold, or – and the case is suggestive – as a workman might confirm the receipt of his wages.”312 G. F. Hawthorne, who deserves to be quoted in full here, has been equally discerning: Paul deliberately tempers his thanks to the Philippians in the fact that he employs so many financial terms when he refers here to the assistance that they gave him … It is almost as though he viewed the entire matter as a strictly business affair: the Philippians had entered into a partnership (ἐκοινώνησεν) with him … And this partnership involved a strict accounting (εἰς λόγον) of all transactions between them … All expenditures and receipts (δόσις καὶ λήµψις) were carefully recorded.313

Hawthorne then proceeded to refute Chrysostom’s influential interpretation, which suggests that “the Philippians gave (δόσις) material goods and 308

So Dodd, “Pauline Illustrations,” 295; Lohmeyer, Philipper, 186. The latter finds a certain eschatological connotation in πληρόω, though he rightly observes der streng geschäftlicher Sinn that ἀπέχω, πληρόω and περισσεύω assume. 309 Cf. Cameron Boyd-Taylor, “Linguistic Register and Septuagintal Lexicography,” in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker (eds. B. A. Taylor et al; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 152–53. 310 Peterlin, Philippians, 153. For Ascough, this is the evidence that Paul’s “audience would be predominantly non-elites, either slaves or freed and free persons, for whom participation in the marketplace was an everyday experience and an integral part of their social world.” Ascough, Macedonian Associations, 122. Cf. Baldanza, “La portata theologica,” 168. 311 The Roman understanding of obligatio entailed both moral and legal obligations. See Berger, EDRL, s.v. obligatio, 603; Zimmermann, Obligations, 5. 312 Capper, “Dispute,” 197–98. 313 Hawthorne, Philippians (1983), 204 (emphasis added).

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

307

in turn received (λήµψις) spiritual goods from Paul,” rightly remarking that “this [understanding] mixes two different things, material and spiritual, and thus alters the normal meaning of δόσις καὶ λήµψις.”314 Hawthorne instead contended that “these words refer to the financial gift of the Philippians, on the hand, and the receipt they received back from the apostle acknowledging its safe arrival on the other hand.”315 Hawthorne’s attempt to grapple with the significance of this business terminology is commendable, although, we would argue, his explanations do not make complete sense of the evidence and his scepticism vis-à-vis Paul’s gratitude is questionable. It is also regrettable that he did not seek to explore further the possible ramifications of the partnership he perceived to be at work here. 316 For J. Fleury, on the other hand, the situation could not be clearer. In verse 18, Paul provides a receipt for all he has received, settles his account with the Philippians, and thereby signifies that he terminates his partnership with them,317 as was the normal procedure at the end of a societas.318 This understanding would certainly make sense if, as Grotius noted, by ἀπέχω Paul had in mind an acceptilatio, i.e., a “formal verbal release from an [oral] obligation,”319 which, some Roman jurists suggested, could also be uttered in Greek provided it matched the Latin wording.320 However, there seems to have been a difference, in Ulpian’s mind at least (ca. early A.D. II), between an apocha (i.e., ἀποχή) and an acceptilatio, which was an oral formula in the form of a question and answer between the creditor and the debtor.321 So it is unlikely that Paul intended an acceptilatio here. 314

Hawthorne, Philippians (1983), 204. Hawthorne, Philippians (1983), 204–205. 316 Ultimately, Hawthorne’s interpretation is self-defeating and depicts Paul as double-minded. On the one hand, Hawthorne considers the Philippians’ gift as problematic for it violates Paul’s principle of self-sufficiency. On the other hand, he maintains that they had formed a partnership, which implies a degree of consensus from both parties involved. What he does not explain, however, is why Paul would have accepted a form of support by means of a partnership which would have undermined his own policy of financial independence. Cf. Hawthorne, Philippians (1983), 210. 317 Fleury, “société,” 55–56. 318 Cf. Buckland, Text-Book, 508–509; Taubenschlag, “societas,” 70; Jakab, “Berenike,” 77–82. 319 OLD, s.v. acceptilatio. 320 According to Ulpian (Sabinus, book 48), the Greek words should have been: ἔχεις λαβών; ἔχω λαβών (Dig. 46.4.8). 321 Ulpian, Dig. 46.4.19: Inter acceptilationem et apocham hoc interest, quod acceptilatione omni modo liberatio contingit, licet pecunia soluta non sit, apocha non alias, quam si pecunia soluta sit (i.e., “Between release [acceptilatio] and receipt [apocha], there is this difference: by formal release [acceptilatio], complete discharge results even though the money has not been paid; by receipt [apocha], only when the money has been paid”; Trans. Watson). Rupprecht also observed this difference: “Ein Schulderlaß kann nur in der acceptilatio, nicht aber in der apocha gefunden werden.” Rupprecht, Studien, 315

308

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that Paul appears to have followed scrupulously the appropriate business convention of his day. In fact, it is not too exaggerated to affirm that the entire passage of 4:15–19 is entirely consistent with the ordinary business language of the time, as is observed in contemporary documentary sources. This further confirms that one need not rely on a metaphorical interpretation to make sense of the economic discourse Paul herein elaborates. Rather, the evidence suggests that we ought to take it as face value and grapple with the socio-economic dynamics herein implied from the socio-cultural perspective of the author and his audience.

7.4 The Significance of Paul’s Economic Discourse While we shall proceed to explore the socio-economic implications of Paul’s discourse in greater details in our next and final chapter, we may herein anticipate some of our conclusions and briefly address what is perhaps the most startling feature of the entire passage, that which, we suspect, baffles interpreters the most: Paul appears to operate with a business mindset, borrowing terminology from the commercial sphere and applying it to his relationship with fellow Christ-believers, some of whom may have been his own disciples. For many, it seems, this is simply inconceivable of the great apostle to the Gentiles. However, as we have argued throughout this exegesis, interpreting Paul’s economic discourse as a sustained metaphor offers no persuasive reading of the passage as a whole. In fact, it represents “a simplistic alternative,”322 insofar as it disregards the specificity and formulaic usage of the terms Paul employs, does not explicate the pragmatic function of the discourse he carefully elaborates, and, ultimately, does not clarify the nature of his κοινωνία with the Philippians. It may be further remarked that a metaphorical understanding fails to appreciate Paul in his full human dimension. Before becoming the great theologian that the Western Christian tradition has made him to be, Paul was first and foremost a man of his world, an artisan from the grass-root levels of Graeco-Roman society, a mere provincial plebeian who worked long hours in a dusty and grimy workshop. He was a businessman who knew the ins and outs of the Roman economy much better than any of us ever will. He was as much steeped in the scriptures and traditions of his Jewish forefathers as he was accustomed to the socio-economic conven58–59. For more details on the form of acceptilatio, see R. Leonhard, “Acceptilatio,” PW[1] 1:138; Berger, EDRL, s.v. acceptilatio, 339–40; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 425; Watson, Private Law, 193–218. 322 Capper, “Dispute,” 194.

Chapter 7: Socio-Economic Reading of Philippians

309

tions and technical language of his cultural environment. These two aspects of Paul’s identity simply cannot be dissociated from each other, nor should one facet be emphasised over the other.323 Once Paul’s business side is given serious consideration, any objection against his use of economic terminology fades away. In fact, it almost becomes an expected feature of his epistles. Yet, what is perhaps more important for us to realise is that, ultimately, there can be only one logical explanation to Paul’s economic discourse. If, as we have argued, a metaphorical significance of such commercial language is to be rejected in favour of a more literal significance, then it must necessarily imply that Paul’s discourse illustrates his perceived reality of the socio-economic nature of his κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον with the Philippians. It reveals that he was operating from a particular socio-economic perspective and model, which he applied to his relationships with the Philippians and his missionary activities. In our next chapter, we shall explore in more detail the significance and purpose of Paul’s κοινωνία with the Philippians by examining the socioeconomic and legal structures of Roman society. For now, we may close by offering our own translation of the passage, which brings to the fore the economic overtones underlined in our exegesis: And you, Philippians, also know that in the beginning of the gospel (mission), when I left Macedonia, no ekklēsia except you alone formed a partnership with me in a (missionary) account of incomes and expenditures. For, even when (I was) in Thessalonica, you provided for my need several times. Not that I am intent on the contribution (itself), but I am set on the benefit (currently) accruing richly to your account. I have (received) everything (that was due) and am in abundance. I have been fully paid, having received from Epaphroditus that which you have sent, (which is) a fragrant aroma, an acceptable and well-pleasing sacrifice unto God. And my God will abundantly repay your every need according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

323 It is interesting to note that not everyone shares the reservation held by many NT scholars towards Paul’s business acumen. Some Roman historians, such as R. Knapp, have been keen to recognise that “Paul’s letter to the Philippians uses language that is extensively mercantile – verbs of accounting and exchange are common,” and has logically concluded: “Not only does this indicate Paul’s own background as a man of commerce, but also that the audience was operating in this exchange and business environment, and felt positive about it.” Knapp, Romans, 8. Cf. Peterlin, Philippians, 153; Craig S. de Vos, Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Philippian Churches with their Wider Civic Communities (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 258–60; Ascough, Macedonian Associations, 120–22.

Chapter 8

A Socio-Economic Analysis of Paul’s Κοινωνία with the Philippians 8.1 Introduction The preceding chapter has highlighted how the closing of Paul’s letter to the Philippians is characterised by an unusual concentration of business termini technici, the significance of which most commentators tend to attenuate by appealing to Paul’s metaphorical creativity. One would be justified in moderating the economic force of these terms and in dismissing the significance of their accumulation if only two or three of them appeared scattered across the passage at relative interval. Such is not the case, however. As we have argued, the (semantic) force and specificity of the terms employed, and their clustering within a few verses, suggests instead a deliberate design on behalf of the author which excludes the possibility of editorial accidence. The majority of commentators would probably concur with this conclusion, though very few have taken the socio-economic implications of Paul’s discourse seriously. Generally speaking, interpreters have concluded that Paul is herein elaborating a sophisticated metaphor, whereby he employs everyday business language to convey a certain sociological or theological reality. We have pointed out the inadequacy of such interpretation, observing that the practical, socio-economic dimension of Paul’s discourse should not be dismissed too hastily. The persistent, but misinformed, view that claims that this technical terminology must be understood as expressing figuratively higher ideals of friendship and/or social-reciprocity does not deal with the specific context of the situation. Moreover, it does not treat adequately the literary sources in which such petty reckonings of friendly beneficia are cast in a more cynical light than what is commonly acknowledged. Paul is in any case not discoursing on the means by which he might deepen his relationship with the Philippians, but acknowledging their concrete show of support. Paul has indeed received some material and/or financial assistance, as we have repeatedly stressed, which has sustained him through his imprisonment and may have in fact saved him from imminent death by starvation

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

311

or some other cause. It boosted his morale and restored his resolve to make it through his ordeal, at least for the Philippians’ sake (cf. Phil 1:19–26). What remains to be determined more precisely, therefore, are the significance and pragmatic function of Paul’s economic discourse. What does it seek to convey? More importantly, what are its socio-economic implications? What does it suggest about the nature of Paul’s relationships with the Philippians? What particular socio-economic reality does it evoke? We shall now proceed to submit an innovative answer to these questions and attempt to elucidate the purpose and significance of Paul’s κοινωνία with the Philippians.

8.2 Κοινωνία as the Interpretive Crux of Paul’s Relationship with the Philippians In the first section of our exegesis, we have argued that the term κοινωνία assumes a prominent place in Paul’s opening thanksgiving at 1:5. We have drawn attention to the discordant views in scholarship as to the specific connotation of the term there and have contended that the significance that makes the most sense is that observed in a sizeable body of documentary sources, that is, partnership. We have deduced that one of Paul’s primary motives in writing to the Philippians was to express his gratitude for their proactive collaboration and assistance in his gospel mission. This understanding, we have argued, is further supported by the way in which he calls them his συγκοινωνοὶ τῆς χάριτος in his public defence (ἀπολογία) and confirmation (βεβαίωσις) of the gospel at 1:7, which, in context, places even more emphasis on their cooperative and supportive role as his close associates in his evangelistic endeavours. In the second part of our exegesis, we have then proposed that the verb κοινωνέω at 4:15 echoes the κοινωνία mentioned at 1:5, and have shown that the partnership agreed between Paul and the Philippians implied, in practical terms, the establishment of a common fund to provide for Paul’s missionary activities. All these elements strongly suggest that κοινωνία, i.e., partnership, constitutes the interpretive key that unlocks a proper understanding of Paul’s relationship with the Philippians.1 It provides the socio-cultural context through which Paul’s business discourse is to be interpreted and his economic interaction with the Philippians is to be explained. It reveals how both parties conceived of their relationship, that is, of the socio-economic 1

Despite the brevity of the letter, the frequency of (συγ)κοινων- cognates in Philippians (1:5, 7; 2:1; 3:10; 4:14–15) is actually equivalent to that in 2 Corinthians (1:7; 6:14; 8:4, 23; 9:13; 13:13), and exceeds that in 1 Corinthians (1:9; 9:23; 10:16, 18, 20) or Romans (11:17; 12:13; 15:26–27).

312

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

framework informing their economic exchanges and cooperation in missionary work. The question that remains to be answered, therefore, is what Paul and the Philippians may have specifically understood by this κοινωνία. As we have seen in our general introduction, J. Fleury and J. P. Sampley were the first to posit that κοινωνία corresponds to the Roman legal concept of societas, a thesis in support of which our philological survey of κοινωνcognates has provided hitherto neglected primary evidence. Should Fleury and Sampley be correct, it would imply that Paul adopted a much more strategic outlook vis-à-vis the support and organisation of his mission than what has generally been assumed. For reasons we have exposed earlier, Fleury and Sampley’s interpretations have failed to persuade the majority of scholars, however. Indeed, few have been convinced by the claim that, for all intents and purposes, societas could coincide with κοινωνία (at least in certain circumstances). Many have also been rather circumspect with regard to the possible legal implications of the societas model. These critics’ objections are well summarized by B. J. Capper’s following paraphrase: The obvious difficulty with the thesis is that it is not plausible that Paul would have condoned recourse to pagan courts to settle a dispute over a broken contract between Christians. He specifically forbids members of the Corinthian congregation to turn to the pagan law-courts to settle their disputes (1 Cor 6.1–8). We cannot therefore allow that the contractual language which Sampley elucidates has ‘legal’ weight in the sense that either party envisaged prosecution before a Roman court if the agreement were breached. The thought is indeed absurd.2

The legal aspect of societas does create some difficulties (when not understood properly), which we will address in more detail below. Yet, commentators’ moves to explain Paul’s interaction with the Philippians according to broad and general social conventions such as friendship,3 socialreciprocity, 4 patronage,5 or even brokerage,6 have not necessarily been more illuminating.7 These interpretations usually do not provide an adequate explanation for Paul’s use of business terminology and lead to a rather imprecise characterisation of the nature of his relationship with the 2

Capper, “Dispute,” 193–94. E.g., Marshall, Enmity, 157–64; Ebner, Leidenslisten, 331–64; White, “Morality”; Fitzgerald, “Philippians,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald); Berry, “Friendship,” in Friendship (ed. Fitzgerald); Fee, Philippians, 2–7, 442–45 (?). 4 E.g., Peterman, Gift; Witherington III, Friendship, 123–25; Ascough, Macedonian Associations, 154–57; Pilhofer, Philippi, 1:147–52 (?). 5 E.g., White, “Authority,” 217; Fee, Philippians, 442–45 (?); Pilhofer, Philippi, 1:147–52 (?); Peterlin, Philippians, 128–30; Bormann, Philippi, 206–24. 6 E.g., Briones, Financial Policy, 58–130. 7 For a helpful, though partial, summary of the history of interpretation, see Reumann, Philippians, 693–98. 3

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

313

Philippians, one that is not always coherent vis-à-vis the socio-economic structure of Graeco-Roman society. The fact that scholars have arrived at widely different appreciations of the same material actually suggests that something might be amiss in our interpretive process. It is certainly perplexing that some could consider Paul’s relationship with the Philippians in the light of “the Hellenistic moral paradigm of φιλία,”8 while others could perceive it to follow the principles of an (asymmetrical) patronage system (though without necessarily agreeing as to who fulfils the role of patron or benefactor).9 These differences may be partly due to a lack of precision in the definition and application of concepts such as patronage or friendship, which, as D. Konstan has suggested, is itself a historical variable.10 These divergences in opinion could also be owing to a certain misunderstanding or even to a lack of differentiation between various ancient socio-cultural conventions, including societas, which some scholars sometimes conflate into one large category that overlooks the complexity of each. This is particularly well illustrated by G. D. Fee’s outright dismissal of the idea of societas in favour of something he calls, within the span of two pages, both “contractual friendship” and “‘consensual’ friendship.”11 It is unclear to us what Fee might have had in mind by these two expressions. One is in fact compelled to ask what contractual friendship could have meant to an inhabitant of the Roman world if not perhaps societas? Fee never considered the question and attempted to explain Paul’s relationship with the Philippians as “another form of ‘patron-client’ relationship,” whereby Paul enjoyed the Philippians’ patronage by accepting Lydia’s hospitality and by receiving material assistance while in Thessalonica.12 Yet, “because their ‘friendship’ was predicated on their mutual belonging to Christ,” their relationship did not really abide by the traditional ‘patron8

White, “Morality,” 201. Bormann, for instance, considers Paul as the patron of the Philippians, an emanzipierte Klientel. Walton, on the other hand, argues that both Paul and the Philippians are “fellow-clients of God,” their patron and father. Bormann, Philippi, 214–16; Walton, “Paul,” 299. For critiques of the application of patronage models in modern NT scholarship, see David J. Downs, “Is God Paul’s Patron? The Economy of Patronage in Pauline Theology,” in Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception (eds. B. W. Longenecker and K. D. Liebengood; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 130–56; Briones, Financial Policy, 26–35. More generally, see Eilers, Roman Patrons, 1–18. 10 See especially the beginning of Konstan’s introductory chapter. Konstan, Friendship, 1–3, 14–18. Cf. Williams, Roman Friendship, 26–27. 11 Fee, Philippians, 442–43. Black also speaks about the “contractual reciprocity” of Paul and the Philippians “in their common goal of spreading the gospel.” Black, “Discourse,” 27. 12 Fee, Philippians, 444. Cf. Peterlin, Philippians, 128–30. 9

314

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

client’ dynamics but was “leveled by total mutuality and reciprocity.”13 If that were so, one might question, then why should we envisage their relationship in terms of a patron-client rapport, however Christ-centred it might have been? B. Witherington III is no less ambiguous as he speaks of a “relationship of ongoing ‘giving and receiving’,” that is, not “a patron-client relationship but more of a parity relationship of some sort.”14 Just as Fee, however, he did not elaborate more precisely on what principle(s) this sort of egalitarian relationship might have been based. Nor did he adduce any similar contemporary examples that might have shed light on Paul’s interaction with the Philippians. Instead, he merely suggested that “the Philippians’ gift was reciprocity for what he had already given them,” and that their “plan required sending money to Paul to aid him personally when he was under house arrest.”15 Yet, he did not explain what kind of social obligation(s) might have constrained the Philippians to come to Paul’s rescue. L. M. White’s interpretation of the Philippians’ “financial arrangements” with Paul does not prove to be much helpful either, as it somewhat blurs the lines between the concepts of patronage and partnership.16 In a first article, he had initially asserted that the apostle “calls this type of patronage their ‘partnership’ (koinōnia) in the gospel (Phil. 1:5; 4:15),” which is a “type of financial relationship [which] established a social and quasi legal bond of mutual obligation between Paul, the charismatic apostle, and the house churches”17 – a position which is an awkward compromise between societas and patronage. In a later essay, however, he depicted Paul’s exchanges with the Philippians through the lens of “[t]he virtue of selfless, loving friendship,”18 whereby “reciprocal obligations” formed “the basis for their bond of friendship with one another, just as with Christ.”19 Still, he did not completely part from a patronage model and argued that Paul somewhat acted as the “spiritual patron” of the Philippians, who themselves served as his “economic patron.”20

13

Fee, Philippians, 445. Witherington III, Friendship, 123 (emphasis added). Twenty years on, he has not changed his opinion. See Witherington III, Philippians, 266–67. 15 Witherington III, Friendship, 123–25 (emphases added). 16 White, “Authority,” 217. 17 White, “Authority,” 217 (emphasis added). White acknowledges Sampley in a footnote at this point (n. 39). 18 White, “Morality,” 214. 19 White, “Morality,” 215 (n. 59). 20 White, “Morality,” 215 (n. 59). Cf. L. Michael White, “Paul and Pater Familias,” in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook (ed. J. P. Sampley; Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2003), 468–71. Lampe somewhat concurs. Peter Lampe, “Paul, Patrons and 14

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

315

G. W. Peterman’s interpretation offers another telling illustration of NT scholars’ common lack of precision and clarity vis-à-vis ancient conventions. Despite his rejection of Fleury and Sampley’ theses, he actually concluded his discussion of 4:10–20 by admitting that Paul’s “reciprocal relationship” with the Philippians, that is, their exchange of “spiritual things” for “material things,” amounted to a “partnership.”21 Yet he refuted the idea that Paul could have felt in any way “socially obligated,” since it would have made him somewhat “inferior.”22 Instead, Peterman contended, “because he has accepted their gifts, they have been elevated to the place of partners in the gospel.”23 Just as with Fee, the reasons for Peterman’s refusal to describe this so-called partnership by the standard Roman convention, i.e., societas, somewhat elude us, and, ultimately, discredit his claim to have investigated Paul’s dealings with the Philippians from a firstcentury socio-cultural perspective. It is also unclear to us how such a reciprocal partnership could have taken place without any of the individuals involved feeling somewhat obligated towards the other, since Roman partnerships depended on the voluntary consent of the partners to fulfil mutual obligations (lest there be no partnership or it be dissolved).24 A final example is provided by G. W. Hansen, who, amongst recent commentators, has been the keenest to avail himself of Sampley’s insights. Initially approving his thesis, Hansen remarked: “Paul’s description of the partnership for the advance of the gospel (κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, 1:5) certainly sounds like a Roman societas: it was a voluntary association of equal partners in a joint venture for a specific goal.”25 Eventually, however, he concluded that Paul merely employed “the concept of societas, a joint venture by consensus, as a metaphor to describe his relationship with the Philippians.”26 For, he contended, “Paul transforms the nature of the joint venture” by involving God (thereby turning a bilateral relationship into a triangular one), and by altering “expectations of reciprocity” (whereby “Paul expected God to reciprocate and reward all gifts,” since he was the third partner).27 At this stage, however, it becomes questionable whether

Cliens,” in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook (ed. J. P. Sampley; Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2003), 498, 502–503. 21 Peterman, Gift, 158 (emphasis added). Interestingly, however, he simply defined κοινωνία as sharing (p. 160). 22 Peterman, Gift, 159. 23 Peterman, Gift, 159 (emphasis added). 24 For a somewhat similar critique of Peterman’s idea of non-obligatory friendship, see Briones, Financial Policy, 117–19. 25 Hansen, “Transformation,” 187. 26 Hansen, “Transformation,” 189 (emphasis added). 27 Hansen, “Transformation,” 188–89.

316

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

this proposed reconstruction still represents “a true partnership,”28 and whether Briones’ brokerage model might not have been a more appropriate description of what Hansen envisaged.29 One also wishes that Hansen had elaborated on the possible benefits that Paul might have derived from such figurative language, or on the rhetorical motivations that might have animated him (other than the desire to express “his appreciation for their voluntary association with him in his mission” and “his confidence that his mission is, in reality, God’s mission”).30 Ultimately, one is prompted to ask: if Paul’s description of his partnership with the Philippians sounds like a Roman societas, if it presents the general characteristics of a societas, and if indeed it functions in a relatively similar way as a societas, then might it not be more reasonable to conclude that it actually is some kind of societas? This brief overview illustrates rather vividly how scholars often speak in general terms of friendship, partnership, (social-)reciprocity, or even patronage, yet shift from one concept to the other without acknowledging the singularities of each of these models. This calls for greater accuracy and clarity in the application of ancient socio-cultural conventions. It also highlights the necessity to move beyond the mere rehearsal of generalities and to identify more precisely and specifically, if it is at all possible, the nature of the economic exchanges between Paul and the Philippians according to one particular socio-economic model of the time. The appeal to partnership is itself only useful insofar as we are able to determine with relative precision the various characteristics and mechanisms of such partnerships from a Graeco-Roman perspective. This consequently requires that we seek to address the question of Paul’s relationship with the Philippians from the viewpoint of the Roman institutions themselves, drawing evidence from whatever literary and documentary sources, including legal ones, may have survived.

8.3 On the Use, Significance, and Diffusion of Roman Legal Sources Before we proceed any further, however, we ought to acknowledge briefly the difficulties of appealing to legal evidence in order to gain a glimpse of the structure and outworkings of Roman society. We also ought to give some attention to the question of the diffusion of Roman legal concepts 28

Hansen, “Transformation,” 189. See Briones, Financial Policy, 128–30. 30 Hansen, “Transformation,” 189. 29

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

317

and practices in the eastern provinces of the empire. The stakes are by no means trivial since, if probed with diligence and care, Roman legal sources have the potential of providing a valuable window of insight into Roman life and society, including its economic aspects, as M. I. Rostovtzeff had long ago recognised.31 For, as J. A. Crook would later remark, generally speaking, “law is certainly some reflection of society … and not only a reflection, but also in some degree an influence on it,”32 even though its regulations are by nature more prescriptive (i.e., they state what should take place), rather than descriptive (i.e., they depict what actually took place).33 As regards Roman law in particular, we should recognise that, as Crook stressed throughout his career, “the whole system, as we learn of it, was a living and practised one and – and this is the important point for the general historian – can therefore be used to illustrate Roman society.”34 The refinements of Roman law, which, to an extent that is not easily determined, were “professional over-elaboration,”35 need not deter non-specialists from approaching the sources, which are certainly not solely reserved for legal historians. For the two groups pursue different, though equally legitimate, objectives: The general historian … [is] not just looking at the Sitz im Leben of the legal institutions – that is done all the time by the legal historians – but looking at the Leben in which the legal institutions have their Sitz, and for the sake of the Leben; and he or she must look at everything in every branch of the law, e.g. marriage, title to be property, surety, iniuria, condemnatio pecuniaria, from that point of view. 36

Herein Crook pointed in an important and promising direction for the study of Roman law: the documentary sources. For these constitute “documents of actual legal practice,” which, when carefully examined and systematically compared with legal and non-legal literary sources (i.e., legislations, juristic commentaries, lay literature), can be profitably employed to illustrate what might otherwise be considered as theoretical sophistications.37 As he explained in the introduction of his opus on the intersection of Roman law and life:

31

Rostovtzeff, Economic History, 1:182–84. Crook, Law, 7. 33 Crook, “Legal History,” 34. Cf. Aubert, “Conclusion,” in Speculum Iuris (eds. Aubert and Sirks), 183. 34 Crook, “Legal History,” 34. 35 Crook, “Legal History,” 34. 36 Crook, “Legal History,” 32. 37 Cf. Crook, Law, 12–18; idem, “Legal History,” 34; Rostovtzeff, Economic History, 1:182–84; Robinson, Sources, 69–73, 115–27; Johnston, Roman Law, 13–14. 32

318

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

to redress the balance of the evidence, there is much that we can add to the juristic treatises [e.g., Digest]. On the one hand there are hundreds of references to legal affairs in Roman lay literature … On the other hand, and much more important still, there survive in remarkable richness, on stone and bronze and papyrus and wooden tablets, actual documents of day-to-day legal business – instrumenta and negotia … Not only does this take us down into the middle-class world of Pompeii, of Trimalchio’s Dinner Party, and further down still to the barmaids and common soldiers and apprentices, and out into the countryside and the provincial towns; it also enables us to judge, a little, how far this lower world did order its lives according to the rules made by the great men in Rome.38

Another of Crook’s significant legacies to ancient history will no doubt remain his challenge to explore more seriously “the place of Roman law in general history as an intellectual phenomenon,” that is, the need to assess its impact on the philosophical, political, social, and economic mindsets of Roman society, its mentalités, rather than simply studying the influence of those upon the law.39 This effectively represented a dramatic departure from the way legal historians had approached Roman law as “an ahistorical given only to be investigated and expounded dogmatically.”40 Nearly half a century later, Crook’s appeal to show greater concern for the ways in which the Romans might have been preconditioned by the ideology and terminology of their law remains one to be reckoned with. For, although it has been given due consideration by a good number of ancient historians, it has yet to be taken more seriously by NT scholars.41 As one might have guessed, however, Crook’s plea has not gone entirely unchallenged, and some legal historians have shown themselves to be more circumspect about the validity and feasibility of this interdisciplinary approach (not least because they often deemed Crook’s treatment of the legal sources to be erroneous).42 Perhaps one of Crook’s most influential detractors has been A. Watson, who, as early as the 1970s, pressed the 38

Crook, Law, 11–12 (emphases added). Crook, “Legal History,” 36. 40 J. W. Cairns and P. J. du Plessis, eds., Beyond Dogmatics: Law and Society in the Roman World (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), 3. 41 Two notable recent attempts by NT scholars are Bruce W. Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 2–3, 39–58; and Bitner, “Constitution”. Amongst ancient historians, responses to Crook’s challenge include Johnston, Roman Law; Aubert and Sirks, eds., Speculum iuris; Paul McKechnie, ed., Thinking like a Lawyer: Essays on Legal History and General History for John Crook on his Eightieth Birthday (Leiden: Brill, 2002). For more titles see Cairns and du Plessis, eds., Beyond Dogmatics, 3–8. 42 Crook himself acknowledged the unfavourable reception of one of his earlier essays on Roman marriage: “The social historians and the anthropologists were outraged: my paper, they insisted, was methodologically unsound, for from legal evidence no conclusions whatsoever may be drawn as to mentalités!” Crook, “Legal History,” 35. See the informative introductory review in Cairns and du Plessis, eds., Beyond Dogmatics, 3–8. For a balanced perspective on the use of legal sources, see Robinson, Sources, 115–27. 39

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

319

point that “[t]here is no necessary correlation between law and the society in which it operates,” since “[l]aw is very much the culture of the lawmakers.”43 Put it simply, “the Digest is ‘law out of context’.”44 For, he assured, Roman law evolved with a rationale of its own that was little influenced by socio-economic considerations, and, over the centuries, abided by the same legal traditions regardless of the economic and/or political transformations affecting its socio-cultural environment.45 In one of his many subsequent works, The Spirit of Roman Law, Watson maintained the same cautious attitude concerning the insight Roman law might shed on society, insisting that “the face presented to the outsiders is essentially that painted by the lawmaking elite, and especially by the jurists,” a face which we behold “through colored and distorting glasses.”46 This naturally renders the influence of law on society a phenomenon that is difficult to appreciate and evaluate. Indeed, the “legal sources that survive reflect accurately [the elite’s] concerns but give little feel for how the law impacted on the population as a whole or even on the upper echelons.”47 Nevertheless, Watson has been willing to consider that the legal experts “were not always and entirely remote from reality,” and could grapple with the legal difficulties of bringing a “sane solution” to an actual, practical situation.48 From the Principate onwards, the jurists, who mainly comprised new Augustan oligarchs of equestrian descent, certainly came to exert increasing influence over the sphere of private law and were significantly involved in the adjudication of (private) trials.49 Their interest in law should thus not be thought to have been purely restricted to the theoretical questions of its interpretation. This assessment has been supported by E. A. Meyer’s recent study Legitimacy and Law in the Roman World, in which she has argued rather 43

Alan Watson, “Law and Society,” in Beyond Dogmatics: Law and Society in the Roman World (eds. J. W. Cairns and P. J. du Plessis; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), 9. Cf. Alan Watson, Society and Legal Change (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1977). For a (surprisingly) more nuanced perspective on the relation between society and law, see Alan Watson, “Society’s Choice and Legal Chance,” Hofstra Law Review 9.5 (1981): 1473–84. 44 Watson, “Law Context,” 148. 45 Watson, “Law and Society,” in Beyond Dogmatics (eds. Cairns and du Plessis), 15, 24–31. The durability of the senatus consultum Silanianum concerning the fate of slaves of murdered domini throughout A.D. I–VI (cf. Dig. 29.5), or the isolation of Justinian’s Digest from Christian influence, appear to be cases in point. 46 Watson, Spirit, 33–34. 47 Watson, Spirit, 33. 48 Watson, Spirit, 98. 49 Bruce W. Frier, “Early Classical Private Law,” in The Augustan Empire, 43 BC–AD 69 (vol. 10 of The Cambridge Ancient History; 2nd ed.; eds. A. K. Bowman, E. Champlin and A. Lintott; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 960–61.

320

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

convincingly that, effectively, legal theory was never completely detached from the “living context of belief and practice” from which it emerged.50 This occurred in spite of the jurists’ “ambitions to establish legal science as a prestigious and independent discipline,” and regardless of their tendency “to distance the activity of legal interpretation – in both phrasing and methods – from the everyday world in which it was to work.”51 In the case of tabulae in particular, new intellectual conceptualization remained strongly entrenched in traditional belief and practice. The reason why Roman law continued to be operative in society, Meyer thus suggested, was “[n]ot because it was rigorously and minutely enforced by thousands of officials or revered in its details by a knowledgeable public, but because it was anchored fathoms deep in Roman culture.”52 The various contributors of the recently edited volume Speculum iuris would likely concur as they have further demonstrated that lawmakers “carefully looked to the real world before manufacturing legal strictures.”53 In fact, “utilitas was often enough a real concern.”54 The imperial responses compiled in the Theodosian and Justinian codes (A.D. V–VI) were to “real needs and problems,” and, even if at times misinformed, were “likely to be efficacious in many cases.”55 The lex portorii Asiae (SEG 39.1180), to which we have made reference in our fifth chapter, is a classic example of a specific socio-economic situation, in this case customs tax evasion and the publicani’s corruption, forcing legal reforms during the reign of Nero.56 Similarly, the documents recovered at Pompeii and Hercu50

Meyer, Legitimacy, 297. Meyer, Legitimacy, 297. 52 Meyer, Legitimacy, 3 (emphasis added). 53 Michael Peachin, “Introduction,” in Speculum iuris: Roman Law as a Reflection of Social and Economic Life in Antiquity (eds. J. J. Aubert and B. Sirks; Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2002), 9. 54 Peachin, “Introduction,” in Speculum iuris (eds. Aubert and Sirks), 9. 55 Jill Harris, “Roman Law Codes and the Roman Legal Tradition,” in Beyond Dogmatics: Law and Society in the Roman World (eds. J. W. Cairns and P. J. du Plessis; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), 101. On the public delivery and efficacy of Roman law in late antiquity, see Jill Harries, Law and Empire in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 77–98; John F. Matthews, Laying Down the Law: A Study of the Theodosian Code (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 168– 99, 254–79. 56 For an informative discussion of Nero’s reforms, see especially Dominic Rathbone, “Nero’s Reforms of Vectigalia and the Inscription of the Lex Portorii Asiae,” in The Customs Law of Asia (eds. M. Cottier et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 250–78. The same observation could be made concerning the tax law of Palmyra (CIS II 3913; A.D. 137), which, as is explained in its preamble (panel 1), was necessitated by similar disputes between traders and customs tax collectors. See J. Teixidor, “Le tarif de Palmyre: 1. Un commentaire de la version palmyrénienne,” Aula Orientalis 1 (1983): 51

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

321

laneum have provided “a rare and fascinating view into events in iure,”57 and have confirmed that Roman law had direct and significant bearings on the Roman economy.58 In effect, they illustrate that “knowledge of the content, wording and characteristic style of Roman statutes was widely diffused, even outside the Roman elite,” and that “a wide range of day to day business depended on knowledge and use of the law.”59 The Romans’ efforts to promulgate, throughout the provinces, senatus consulta (e.g., SC de Asclepiade),60 colonial and municipal charters (e.g., lex Irnitana),61 edicts (e.g., SEG 29.127),62 or new legislations (e.g., lex portorii Asiae),63 by means of public proclamations, stone inscriptions, or bronze tablets, which were to be exposed in prominent places in the forum, bear further witness to the fact that law was thought to play an active role in the organisation and orderly proceedings of society.64 The concern to make new elements of the law known to the general public certainly indicates that “[t]he impact of Roman legislation owed its force – and the legislation its validity – to its promulgation and display in the communities to 235–52; John F. Matthews, “The Tax Law of Palmyra: Evidence for Economic History in a City of the Roman East,” JRS 74 (1984): 157–80. 57 Ernest Metzger, “Lawsuits in Context,” in Beyond Dogmatics: Law and Society in the Roman World (eds. J. W. Cairns and P. J. du Plessis; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), 205. 58 These have recently been re-edited and republished by G. Camodeca (T.Sulpicii). To reference only a few other studies, see for instance Jean Andreau, Les affaires de Monsieur Jucundus (Rome: École Française de Rome, 1974); Macqueron, Contractus. Cf. John A. Crook, “Working Notes on Some of the New Pompeii Tablets,” ZPE 29 (1978): 229–39; Taco Terpstra, “Roman Law, Transaction Costs and the Roman Economy: Evidence from the Sulpicii Archive,” in Pistoi dia tèn technèn: Bankers, Loans and Archives in the Ancient World (eds. K. Verboven, K. Vandorpe, and V. Chankowski; Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 345–69. See also David Johnston, “Law and Commercial Life of Rome,” PCPhS 43 (1997): 53–65. 59 M. Crawford, “The Laws of the Romans: Knowledge and Diffusion,” in Estudios sobre la Tabula Siarensis (eds. J. González and J. Arce; Madrid: C.S.I.C., 1988), 127–28. Cf. Robinson, Sources, 79; M. Christopher Jones, “Juristes romains dans l’Orient grec,” CRAI 151.3 (2007): 1331–59. 60 See Raggi, “Asclepiade”. 61 See especially chapter 95 of the lex for instructions to the duumvir to inscribe and display the lex in a prominent public place (p. 199). Julián González and Michael C. Crawford, “The Lex Irnitana: A New Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law,” JRS 76 (1986): 147–243. 62 See the document in appendix A (ca. A.D. 174/5). Cf. Williams, “Marcus Aurelius,” 37–56. 63 On the composition and display of the lex, see especially G. D. Rowe, “The Elaboration and Diffusion of the Text of the Monumentum Ephesenum,” in The Customs Law of Asia (eds. M. Cottier et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 236–50. 64 Cf. Crawford, “Laws,” in Estudios (eds. González and Arce), 127–40.

322

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

which it was sent.”65 Such public exhibitions were in fact intended to allow the persons concerned to consult, and if required, to copy the relevant legislation themselves (cf. Suetonius, Cal. 41.1).66 Overall, then, despite the criticisms of a number of legal historians and an ever-widening “chasm between the study of Roman history and the study of Roman law,”67 an overly sceptical attitude as to the actual intersection between law and life is unwarranted.68 Whilst there subsist some dark areas regarding the interplay of legal theory and legal practice, especially in the provinces,69 it is unquestionable that the Romans “took their law very seriously, and thought it characteristic of themselves to do so.”70 So much so that “the law cannot safely be left out of an historical vision of their world.”71 Watson’s reticence to see a connection between law and life can in a sense be explained by his strong focus on the post-classical legal commentaries such as the Digest, which can only give us “an impressionistic picture of ancient realities.”72 Fortunately, however, our knowledge of Roman law is not confined to such technical, and oftentimes obscure, sources, but is complemented by a rich diversity of documents such as leges, plebiscita, senatus consulta, constitutiones (imperial enactments), magistrates’ edicts, and contracts, which, when carefully examined in conjunction with juristic commentaries, allow us to gain a kaleidoscopic picture of Roman law and society (cf. Cicero, Top. 28; Gaius 1.1–7; Justinian, Inst. 1.2).73 Similarly, we need not harbour excessive reservations regarding the relevance of Roman law to non-Roman citizens of the Greek East, even though the principle of juristic personality seems to have generally prevailed throughout the ancient Mediterranean world, that is to say, one’s citizenship and/or ethnicity usually determined which legal system was 65

Matthews, Law, 186. Cf. Johnston, Roman Law, 10–11. Cf. Matthews, Law, 197–99; Crawford, “Laws,” in Estudios (eds. González and Arce), 133. On the necessity to display public contracts, see Cédric Brélaz, “Publicité, archives et séquence documentaire du contrat public à Rome,” in Tâches publiques et entreprise privée dans le monde romain: Actes du Diplôme d’études Avancées, Universités de Neuchâtel et de Lausanne, 2000–2002 (ed. J.-J. Aubert; Genève: Droz, 2003), 27– 56; Bitner, “Constitution,” 257–58. 67 Meyer, Legitimacy, 3. 68 For a similar rationale, see the second chapter of Bitner’s thesis. Bitner, “Constitution,” 63–70. 69 Johnston, Roman Law, 11: “the role of Roman law in the provinces was not uniform, and our picture of it necessarily remains an impressionistic one.” 70 Meyer, Legitimacy, 3. 71 Meyer, Legitimacy, 3. 72 Aubert, “Conclusion,” in Speculum Iuris (eds. Aubert and Sirks), 187. 73 For a general introduction to Roman legal sources, see Buckland, Text-Book, 1–55; Robinson, Sources. 66

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

323

applicable74 – the extent to which this was so is difficult to evaluate, however, and remains a point of debate amongst legal historians themselves.75 Ever since the office of the praetor peregrinus had been created in Rome in 242 B.C. to adjudicate affairs amongst peregrini,76 the sphere of application of civil law (ius civile), which had hitherto been restricted to Roman citizens, had been extended to include foreigners living in Rome as well (ius gentium), and, soon enough, applied to those living outside Italy under Roman rule.77 As Rome spread eastwards, so did its law, even though the Romans were generally respectful of indigenous legal practices and customs, which in Greek city-states retained a strong local flavour, and were initially mainly concerned with imposing a lex provincia (provincial charter) on annexed territories.78 Progressively, however, in Greece, as much as in Egypt and other eastern provinces such as Arabia, local private law undertook a process of Romanization, “une mutation qualitative,”79 to the extent that, long before 74

As Watson summarizes well: “Thus in Greco-Roman Egypt, the Egyptians were governed by native Egyptian private law, the Greeks by the Hellenistic ‘common law’ (legal κοινή), the Romans by Roman law and other smaller groups – such as the Jews – by their personal law.”Alan Watson, Legal Transplants: An Approach to Comparative Law (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1974), 31. 75 See Ernst Schönbauer, “Studien zum Personalitätsprinzip im antiken Rechte,” ZRG 49 (1929): 345–403; idem, “Deditizier, Doppel-Bürgerschaft und Personalitäts-Prinzip,” JJP 6 (1952): 17–72; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 2 (n. 1), 8–9; H. F. Jolowicz, “Review of R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, 332 B.C.–A.D. 640,” JRS 36 (1946): 203; Joseph Modrzejewski, “La règle de droit dans l’Égypte Ptolémaïque (État des questions et perspectives de recherches),” in Essays in Honor of C. Bradford Welles (New Haven: The American Society of Papyrologists, 1966), 140–49. 76 Whether the praetor peregrinus judged lawsuits between Roman citizens and nonRoman citizens before the Principate remains debated. See David Daube, “The Peregrine Praetor,” JRS 41 (1951): 366–70; Alan Watson, Law Making in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford: Clarendon, 1974), 62–82. Cf. Berger, EDRL, s.v. praetor, 647; Jolowicz and Nicholas, Introduction, 48. 77 See Jolowicz and Nicholas, Introduction, 102–107; Berger, EDRL, s.v. ius civile/gentium, 527–29; Jean Triantaphyllopoulos, “Le droit romain dans le monde grec,” JJP 21 (1991): 76 (n. 6); Robinson, Sources, 5. For a thorough study of ius gentium, see Max Kaser, Ius Gentium (Cologne: Böhlau, 1993). 78 See Jolowicz and Nicholas, Introduction, 66–70; Andrew Lintott, Imperium Romanum: Politics and Administration (London: Routledge, 1993), 28–32, 154–60; Modrzejewski, “Égypte Romaine,” in Proceedings (ed. Samuel), 336; Triantaphyllopoulos, “Le droit romain,” 75. 79 Modrzejewski, “Égypte Romaine,” in Proceedings (ed. Samuel), 328. According to Taubenschlag, in Egypt the “Romanization of the local law” was “counterbalanced by a similar Hellenization of the Roman law,” much like in previous times Egyptian and Ptolemaic law had mutually influenced each other. Taubenschlag, LGRE, 46. We find the same amalgamation between Roman law and Hellenistic law in Roman Dacia, for instance. See E. Pólay, The Contracts in the Triptychs found in Transylvania and their

324

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

the constitutio Antoniniana of A.D. 212, which granted the civitas Romana to all peregrini (dediticii, i.e., vanquished people, excepted of course),80 a sort of Graeco-Roman nomocracy, i.e., “un mélange de droit grec et romain,” had become operative throughout Greece and Macedonia.81 This initial “période de subordination” in the first two centuries A.D. was then followed by “une période d’inclusion,” during which local customs came to be absorbed in the Roman juristic system as provincial customs.82 Legal acculturation thus worked in both directions. As H. Cotton has further remarked, the “very presence of the Romans as the supreme authority” effectively invited provincials, “without coercion or attempts to impose uniformity,” to appeal to “their courts as well as their laws,”83 and thereby to embrace Roman legal concepts and practices, some of which were, stricto sensu, only reserved to Roman citizens. This partly explains the hybrid character of contractual documents in the Roman Greek East, for “Roman law was appropriated by provincial subjects and adjusted to fit their own purposes and cultural contexts.”84 As a whole, allowing for residual regional differences, all of the evidence therefore points towards “a remarkable penetration of Roman legal culture wide throughout the empire.”85

Hellenistic Features (Studia Historica 133; Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1980), 16. Cf. Watson, Transplants, 31–35; Hans J., Wolff, “Römisches Provinzialrecht in der Provinz Arabia (Rechtspolitik als Instrument der Beherrschung),” ANRW 13:763–807; Triantaphyllopoulos, “Le droit romain,” 77–78; Hannah Cotton, “The Guardianship of Jesus Son of Babatha: Roman and Local Law in the Province of Arabia,” JRS 83 (1993): 94–96; Lintott, Imperium, 154–60. 80 The secondary literature on the edict, of which only a papyrus fragment remains (P.Giss. 40), is considerable and the eighty or so studies published prior to the early 1960s are well summarized in Christoph Sasse, “Literaturübersicht zur Constitutio Antoniniana: I. Teil,” JJP 14 (1962): 109–49; idem, “Literaturübersicht zur Constitutio Antoniniana: II. Teil,” JJP 15 (1965): 329–66. Sasse’s dissertation remains fundamental. Christoph Sasse, Die Constitutio Antoniniana: Eine Untersuchung über den Umfang der Bürgerrechtsverleithung auf Grund des Papyrus Giss. 40 I (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1958). See also A. H. M. Jones, “Another Interpretation of the ‘Constitutio Antoniniana’,” JRS 26.2 (1936): 223–35; Hartmut Wolff, Die Constitutio Antoniniana und Papyrus Gissensis 40 I: Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der philosophischen Fakultät der Universität zu Köln (Cologne: Universität zu Köln, 1976); Kostas Buraselis, ΘΕΙΑ ∆ΩΡΕΑ: Das göttlich-kaiserliche Geschenk: Studien zur Politik der Severer und zur Constitutio Antoniniana (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007). 81 Triantaphyllopoulos, “Le droit romain,” 77. 82 Modrzejewski, “Égypte Romaine,” in Proceedings (ed. Samuel), 367. 83 Cotton, “Guardianship,” 107. 84 Bang, Bazaar, 186. Cf. Meyer, Legitimacy, 169–215; Rathbone and Temin, “Financial Intermediation,” in Pistoi (eds. K. Verboven et al.), 382. 85 Johnston, Roman Law, 11. Cf. Bang, Bazaar, 186–88.

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

325

As regards the concept of partnership in particular, we have presented in our fifth chapter plenty of documentary evidence that attest to the fact that this economic and legal instrument was well established in the Greek eastern part of the Roman world. As one would expect, business partnerships prospered wherever the Roman empire spread and trade flourished, regardless of geo-cultural or even ethnical boundaries. The famous Dacian triptych recording the formation of a societas danistariae between two feneratores, i.e., money-lenders (CIL III, pp. 950–51 = FIRA2 3.157),86 the numerous references to (mostly Baetican) socii on the tituli picti of Monte Testaccio,87 or the partnership contract between Jewish and Egyptian potters for the lease (µίσθωσις) of a pottery workshop (C.Pap.Hengstl I 46 = BGU VI 1282; II–I B.C.),88 are telling examples of the pervasiveness of this obligatio.89 This is after all understandable since, as a consensual contract, societas pertained to ius gentium, that is, it could be formed between Roman and non-Roman citizens, which greatly facilitated commerce throughout the Mediterranean.90 For Gaius (Inst. 3.154), the inclusion of societas in ius gentium was actually due to the fact that “this institution, being in perfect harmony with natural reason, [could] be found in foreign systems too,” and that “in contradistinction to consortium [i.e., undivided ownership amongst heirs] it [was] available both to citizens and to peregrines.”91 The wide spread of business partnerships clearly illustrates that this type of contract was not solely restricted to the theory of legal textbooks, but represented a tangible reality to people throughout the empire. There is thus no particular reason to doubt that societas would have been a familiar concept to the rank and file of society (including the slaves who adminis86

This societas was formed for the purpose of lending money at interest (cf., danistariae, i.e., δανειακός), and not to manage bank deposits. Hence, the two signatories should be seen as feneratores (money-lenders), and not as argentarii or nummularii (bankers). See Andreau, La vie financière, 627–28. Cf. Arangio-Ruiz, La società, 145– 46; Pólay, Contracts, 11, 15; Macqueron, Contractus, 111–14; Bang, Bazaar, 185. 87 The foundational study remains H. Dressel, “Richerche sul Monte Testaccio,” Annali dell’ Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica (1878): 118–92 (see esp. pp. 137, 151, 158). Cf. Broekaert, “Joining Forces”. 88 No κοινων- cognate is used to formalise the partnership (cf. l. 5: ὁµολογοῦµεν συνµετέχοµεν = συνµετέχειν), but the Jewish potters agree to a common share of all the losses and profits (cf. ll. 12–13: ἐὰν δέ τι γένηται βλάβος ἢ ὠφέλιαι κοινῆι καὶ διαιρέτους). Cf. Taubenschlag, “societas,” 75–76; Mees, Organisationsformen, 363; Burnet, L’Égypte, 67, #16. 89 Johnston, Roman Law, 10. For a basic legal definition of obligatio, which denoted “both legal obligations and moral duties,” see Berger, EDRL, s.v. obligatio, 603. Cf. Zimmermann, Obligations, 5. 90 Cf. Broekaert, “Joining Forces”. 91 Daube, “Societas,” 385.

326

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

tered the estates and business interests of the wealthy), to the so-called middling classes who were involved in all kinds of commercial activities, as well as to the equestrian and senatorial orders. Similarly, we can be confident that, in a Roman colony such as Philippi, which enjoyed a strategic location on the via Egnatia, its inhabitants, whether Roman citizens or not, would have been acquainted with the legal concept.92 Naturally, this observation also applies to the local Christian community there, which, as a number of scholars have suggested, seems to have mainly comprised craftsmen and small retailers, as well as, possibly, local farmers (including colons), who, if we are to judged by the papyrological evidence adduced in chapter five, were also well accustomed to economic partnerships.93 No a priori objection should therefore stand in the way of considering a GraecoRoman model of partnership as relevant to the Philippian community.94 This, in turn, requires that we seek to understand more accurately the purpose, characteristics, and mechanisms, of this obligatio.

8.4 Anatomy of Graeco-Roman Partnerships (Κοινωνία/Societas) 8.4.1 The Assimilation of Κοινωνία with Societas Our examination of documentary sources in chapter five has enabled us to establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, that partnership, be it political, commercial, or otherwise, was commonly expressed in Greek by the term κοινωνία (as well as µετοχή), which, from a Roman legal and socioeconomic perspective, would have been perceived and treated as societas. Unlike the Romans, the Greeks of the Classical and Hellenistic periods never seem to have developed a sophisticated model of partnership, however. In fact, neither the Greeks nor the Romans ever conceived of a “legal

92

On the importance of the via Egnatia, see for instance Yannis Lolos, “Via Egnatia after Egnatius: Imperial Policy and Inter-Regional Contacts,” in Greek and Roman Networks in the Mediterranean (eds. I. Malkin, C. Constantakopoulou, and K. Panagopoulou; London: Routledge, 2009), 264–84. 93 Knapp, Ascough, and Peterlin, for instance, consider the business terminology which Paul employs as one of the clues to the social composition of his audience. Knapp, Romans, 8; Ascough, Macedonian Associations, 120–22; Peterlin, Philippians, 152–53. Cf. Pilhofer, Philippi, 1:78–85. Philippi and its surroundings retained a strongly rural character, however. See Paul Collart, Philippes: Ville de Macédoine depuis ses origines jusqu’à la fin de l’époque Romaine (Paris: de Boccard, 1937), 274–76. Cf. Pilhofer, Philippi, 1:78–81; Oakes, Philippians, 70–71. For a tentative model of the social composition of Philippi and its Christian community, see ibid., 14–70. 94 Cf. Fleury, “société,” 49.

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

327

concept akin to our modern notion of partnership or corporation.”95 Nevertheless, as our review of the documentary sources has illustrated, the Greeks were pragmatic enough to form various kinds of partnerships to achieve their business ends. As J. W. Jones has noted: Indeed for centuries commercial association continued to be confined to groups of a few men, usually well known to one another and often relatives, who wished to pool their modest resources with a view not so much to the accumulation of large funds but to the sharing of certain well-defined risks in the expectation of moderate gains.96

E. M. Harris has drawn an analogous conclusion, noting in passing the conceptual similarities between Greek κοινωνία and Roman societas: Instead of forming a corporation, business partners would enter into an agreement called a koinonia (partnership) or koinopraxia, which was similar to the Roman contract of societas (Justinian Institutes 2.25 [sic: 3.25]). This arrangement set for what each party would contribute to the joint enterprise and what share in the profits each was entitled to receive.97

In a similar vein, C. Nicolet has noted a connection between the Greek and Roman notions of partnership, whose basic characteristics he has explained as follows: Les Romains connaissent – comme les Grecs – la societas, association à fin lucrative, extensible à tous les domaines (jusqu’ à l’enseignement de la grammaire). Le droit privé en fixe peu à peu les règles, qui restent formalistes et limitatives: la société est limitée dans le temps, dissoute automatiquement par la mort d’un associé, à moins de faire un nouveau contrat. La responsabilité limitée n’existe pas: les associés sont responsables sur tout leur patrimoine.98

95

Edward M. Harris, “The Liability of Business Partners in Athenian Law: The Dispute Between Lycon and Megacleides ([Dem.] 52.20–1),” CQ 39.2 (1989): 342. Hence, neither corporate personality nor corporate liability existed in Greek and Roman law (except perhaps with respect to societates publicanorum, though this remains debated). Cf. Beauchet, Histoire, 4:167–71; Endenburg, Koinoonia, 160–200; J. Walter. Jones, The Law and Legal Theory of the Greeks: An Introduction (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956), 162– 63; Moses I. Finley, Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens, 500–200 B.C.: The Horos-Inscriptions. (New York: Arno, 1973), 88–89; Bruce W. Frier and Dennis P. Kehoe, “Law and Economic Institutions,” in The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World (eds W. Scheidel, I. Morris, and R. Saller; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 126–34; Barbara Abatino, Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci, and Enrico Perotti, “Early Elements of the Corporate Form: Depersonalization of Business in Ancient Rome,” OJLS 31.2 (2011): 365–89. 96 Jones, Legal Theory, 160. For a detailed study of such commercial partnerships, see Endenburg, Koinoonia, 160–200; Szlechter, Le contrat, 95–161. 97 Harris, Democracy, 150 (italics original). 98 Claude Nicolet, Rendre à César: Économie et société dans la Rome antique (Paris: Gallimard, 1988), 91.

328

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

What these scholars have recognised is precisely what we have observed in documentary sources: in practical terms, κοινωνία and societas could designate a socio-economic partnership, which both Greeks and Romans found to be a useful device in the conduct of their business activities. This does not mean, however, that κοινωνία and societas functioned in exactly the same way, and one would have to allow for regional as well as circumstantial differences in appreciation and application of the concept, which was by nature flexible. It is unfortunate that we know so little about ancient Greek law, which prevents us from having a precise understanding of the structure and outworkings of Greek partnerships in the Classical, Hellenistic, and early Roman periods.99 Most of our sources on Greek law vary greatly in quantity and quality, and come mainly from the juristic speeches of the Attic orators (ca. V–IV B.C.), inscriptions (e.g., Gortyn Code), as well as Egyptian papyri from the Hellenistic period onwards.100 As our philological survey has highlighted, the latter furnish the bulk of our evidence for ancient κοινωνίαι, which, in fact, date, for the most part, from the early to late imperial era. The process of Romanization of Ptolemaic law (and, reciprocally, the process of Hellenization of Roman law), was by then well and truly advanced.101 By A.D. 212, date of Caracalla’s constitutio Antoniniana, Roman law would actually become universally applicable throughout the empire and local communities would lose all sovereignty over their juristic system (though peregrine legal traditions would not disappear altogether).102 Indeed, “en même temps que la citoyenneté romaine absorbe en elle les appartenances locales, les droits locaux sont incorporés dans le droit de l’Empire.”103 99

Beauchet’s fourth volume on Greek obligations remains indispensable, as are the studies by Endenburg and Szlechter. See Beauchet, Histoire, 4:340–71 (on partnerships); Endenburg, Koinoonia; Szlechter, Le contrat, 95–161. See also Edward E. Cohen, “Commercial Law,” in The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law (eds. M. Gagarin and D. Cohen; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 290–302; idem, “Consensual Contracts at Athens,” in Symposion 2003: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Rauischholzhausen, 30. September–3. Oktober 2003) (ed. H.-A. Rupprecht; Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2006), 73– 91. 100 Cf. Biscardi, Diritto, 15–35; S. C. Todd, “Law in Greece,” OCD3, p. 835. 101 Cf. Taubenschlag, LGRE, 46; Modrzejewski, “Égypte Romaine,” in Proceedings (ed. Samuel), 317–77. 102 Modrzejewski, “Égypte Romaine,” in Proceedings (ed. Samuel), 347–68; Triantaphyllopoulos, “Le droit romain,” 78. The question of the impact of the constitutio Antoniniana on local legal customs far exceeds the scope of this dissertation and remains a matter of discussion amongst legal historians. See for instance Schönbauer, “Personalitätsprinzip”; idem, “Deditizier”; Wolff, Constitutio Antoniniana, 35–117. 103 Modrzejewski, “Égypte Romaine,” in Proceedings (ed. Samuel), 368.

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

329

It is therefore practically certain that all of the partnerships labelled as κοινωνία and postdating A.D. 212, which we have observed in papyri, corresponded to a Roman societas. One could in fact assert that, by the firstcentury A.D., wherever the imperium populi romani was efficacious, that is, wherever the Romans had iurisdictio,104 the concept of partnership, whether it was expressed in Greek (i.e., κοινωνία or µετοχή), or in some other language, could have only been recognized, from the viewpoint of Roman law, as societas. The fact that such contracts may have been written (or orally agreed) in Greek rather than in Latin does not negate this point, since societas pertained to ius gentium. What this entails for our study, and which is highly significant, is that Paul’s reference to his partnership with the Philippians by means of the term κοινωνία would have been immediately and automatically assimilated by inhabitants of a Roman colony such as Philippi with the Roman legal concept of societas. One can almost be categorical on this point since there existed no other alternative of business association. From the pre-classical to the post-classical periods, societas, whose rules hardly evolved,105 remained “the only transaction allowing two or more parties to pool their assets for a common purpose.”106 This justifies, therefore, that we closely examine the basic legal structure of societas in order to understand more accurately the purpose and basic structure of Paul’s κοινωνία with the Philippians. 8.4.2 Origins and Basic Characteristics of Roman Societas Despite the conceptual similarities between the Greek and Roman ideas of partnership, it is unlikely that there existed a direct link and dependency between the two, not unlike other aspects of Roman law which was relatively hermetic to Greek influence.107 The origins of societas remain in fact rather unclear. What is apparent is that the most archaic kind of societas, a peculiar (proprium) type of partnership proper to the Romans which was

104 On the relation between iurisdictio and imperium, see Leopold Wenger, Institutes of the Roman Law of Civil Procedure (rev. ed.; trans. O. Harrison Fisk; Littleton: F. B. Rothman, 1986), 31; Max Kaser, Das römische Zivilprozessrecht (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1966), 29–30. Cf. Lintott, Imperium, 54–59; Berger, EDRL, s.v. iurisdictio, 523–24. 105 The foundational principles of societas were hardly modified by Justinian, who only sought to diminish slightly the responsibilities imposed on socii. For a detailed discussion, see del Chiaro, Le contrat, 289–303. 106 Zimmermann, Obligations, 467 (emphasis added). 107 Cf. Watson, Transplants, 79–81; Watson, “Evolution,” 8. But see Szlechter, Le contrat, 3, 267. More generally, on the little influence of Greek law on Roman ius see Watson, Law Making, 186–95; Watson, Spirit, 64–73, 111–16, 158–71; Triantaphyllopoulos, “Le droit romain,” 84.

330

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

called ercto non cito (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.154a–b),108 arose from the necessity for the immediate heirs (sui heredes) of a pater familias to manage their (undivided) inherited assets in common.109 According to Gaius, this (preclassical) statutory and natural societas was in effect a sort of consortium, i.e., some undivided ownership (dominio non diviso), amongst brothers or unrelated individuals who, from a legal standpoint, appeared to be so (Gaius, Inst. 3.154b). With time, it seems to have evolved into a consensual societas omnium bonorum, that is, “a partnership involving all the partner’s assets of whatever source” (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.148; Dig. 17.2.52.6, 8).110 Progressively, and perhaps as early as III–II B.C.,111 the economic development of Rome led to the creation of another type of partnership better suited to mercantile activities: the societas alicuius negotii/negotiationis, that is, a partnership in any commercial enterprise, such as the trading of oil, wine, grain, clothes, slaves, etc. (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.148; Justinian, Inst. 3.25; Dig. 17.2.5 pr., 17.2.44, 17.2.52.4, 21.1.44.1)112 – here is perhaps another hint of the dynamic relationship between law and life.113 This development seems to be explained by the fact that, as W. Broekaert has argued, such partnerships enabled businessmen and financiers involved in 108

This passage from Gaius was discovered in a papyrus fragment (PSI XI 1182) and published in 1933. See Zulueta, “New Fragments”; idem, “New Fragments II”; FIRA2 2, p. 133. Cf. Buckland, Text-Book, 404; Daube, “Societas,” 381–82. 109 Later, however, common ownership would no longer represent sufficient evidence of a partnership, which also required partners to share a common purpose (cf. Dig. 17.2.31). 110 Zimmermann, Obligations, 452. Cf. Szlechter, Le contrat, 165–81; Arangio-Ruiz, La società, 3–31; Zulueta, Institutes, 174–78; Buckland, Text-Book, 513–14; Metzger, Companion, 162–63; Daube, “Societas,” 381–82; Max Kaser, Das römische Privatrecht: Das altrömische, das vorklassische und klassische Recht (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1971), 573; idem, “Societas,” 281–93; Berger, EDRL, s.v. consortium, 409, s.v. societas omnium bonorum, 709. As noted before, del Chiaro would contest this reconstruction but he had no knowledge of PSI XI 1182. Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, 14–18 (n. 1). 111 Note the reference to Q. Mucius Scaevola (ca. 170–87 B.C.) in Dig. 17.2.11. Cf. Daube, “Societas,” 391; Watson, “Societas,” 431–34; Zulueta, Institutes, 178. 112 See del Chiaro, Le contrat, 59; Szlechter, Le contrat, 257–67; Broekaert, “Joining Forces”. 113 Cf. Szlechter, Le contrat, 409; Zimmermann, Obligations, 452–53. Watson’s hypothesis on the origin of consensual contracts has to imply the influence of economic concerns over legal matters (see esp. pp. 9–10, 19–20), though he declined it to be the case with regard to societas: “It owes its existence entirely to the internal logic of the legal tradition, and not at all to economic, social, or political pressures. It is the same legal logic and the piecemeal development of Roman contracts and not societal forces that either prevented the necessity for equivalence from spreading to the other bilateral contracts or from being extinguished for partnership.” See Watson, “Evolution,” 16. Cf. Watson, Spirit, 137.

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

331

maritime trade to minimise risks by avoiding contracting substantial loans at exorbitant interest rates (i.e., as much as 30%),114 and by diversifying their investments among various societates, using the benefits of some to cover the losses of others.115 It also allowed for a more efficient and flexible “division of labor between ‘passive’ partners, who supplied money, facilities and goods without personally engaging in trade, and ‘active’ partners, who were responsible for carrying out the actual aim of the societas.”116 For Roman aristocrats who were eager to invest their money in mercantile activities without sharing in the embarrassment usually associated with them, societas thus provided them with a discreet, effective, and less hazardous avenue to make good profits.117 In fact, it may be the inherent capacity of societates “to strengthen the cooperation of investors, producers, conveyers and merchants,”118 the necessary actors of economic production and distribution, that enabled Rome to develop its trans-regional trade throughout the Mediterranean world,119 as the tituli picti of Monte Testaccio attest,120 and with regions as far as Arabia and India.121 114 Justinian later tried to limit the interest rate to 12% (cf. Justinian, Nov. 106). See Rougé, Recherches, 351–54; idem, “Prêt,” 291–95. Cf. G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, “Ancient Greek and Roman Maritime Loans,” in Debits, Credits, Finance and Profits (eds. H. Edey and B. S. Yamey; London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1974), 54–56; Rathbone, “Maritime Commerce,” 213 (n. 59). 115 Broekaert, “Joining Forces,” 222–28. Cf. Bang, Bazaar, 275. 116 Broekaert, “Joining Forces,” 224. Broekaert (p. 222) provides a logical explanation for this: “One can easily imagine how some businessmen possessed sufficient capital to engage in trade but recoiled from the practical risks involved, while others had the expertise and willingness to travel to distant markets but lacked financial support. Here, the societas could be a very flexible solution to the problems of each partner.” 117 Verboven, Economy, 275–82; Broekaert, “Joining Forces,” 224–25. Cf. D’Arms, Commerce, 48–55. 118 Broekaert, “Joining Forces,” 226. 119 Cf. Rougé, Recherches, 419–35; idem, “Prêt”; Broekaert, “Joining Forces.” 120 A large section of vol. 15.2 of CIL published in 1899 by H. Dressel is dedicated to such instrumenta domestica. Many of these often make mention of the socii (often abbreviated as soci or socior for sociorum) of the societates involved in the distribution of commercial goods (e.g., CIL XV 3730, 3881–3882). Even in cases where no indication is given as to the relation between the names mentioned, Broekaert has argued that, on legal grounds, it could be deduced that a partnership had been concluded. (Put simply, the merchants’ names never display signs of being in potestate, which implies that they must have all been sui iuris, and therefore equal partners in a societas. Further, the reference to at least two names seems to suggest that both would have been liable, which implies a partnership relationship rather than an agency agreement whereby only the agent was liable). See esp. pp. 230–33 in Broekaert, “Joining Forces”. Cf. Crook, Law, 229. 121 Steven E. Sidebotham, Roman Economic Policy in the Erythra Thalassa 30 B.C.– A.D. 217 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986); Dick Whittaker, “Le commerce romain avec l’Inde

332

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

Whatever the origins and early developments of societas may have been, what is more important for us to concentrate on are the objectives and basic characteristics of what legal historians usually classify as the fourth type of consensual contracts. As W. W. Buckland has well summarized, its primary raison d’être was “[e]ssentially the union of funds, skill, or labour, or a combination of them, for a common [lawful] purpose which often had, but need not have, profit for its aim.”122 Thus, it was not based on an “antagonism of interests,” whereby a socius might have contributed or accomplished something for “a counterperformance from his fellow socii.”123 Rather, it depended on the fulfilment of mutual obligations. The existence of “un simple consentement” or “une communauté de biens” was not sufficient to constitute a societas, however (cf. Dig. 17.2.31).124 A licit purpose, or at least a common interest, i.e., “un simple avantage commun à tous” or even “un but d’assistance mutuelle,” needed to be clearly identified and jointly pursued by the socii.125 It could relate to “un ensemble d’opérations determinées,” or simply to “une seule opération,” since “aucun principe ne s’opposait à la limitation de l’objet de leur société.”126 As an obligatio, which for the Romans carried “both legal obligations and moral duties,”127 societas was simply formed on the basis of a contract (ex contractu) through a bilateral (or sometimes plurilateral)128 agreement (consensus), which bound all parties to fulfil their respective obligations (alter alteri obligatur) in a right and equitable manner (ex bono et aequo; cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.137).129 It did not need to follow a specific verbal or written form, could be established via a letter or a messenger, if the partners were distant from each other, and was immediately effective (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.135–36).130 Perplexing as it may be for moderns, “nothing but conet la prise de décision économique,” Topoi 10 (2000): 267–88; Rathbone, “Maritime Commerce,” 220–23. 122 Buckland, Text-Book, 506–507 (emphasis added). Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, 106; Arangio-Ruiz, La società, 63; Zimmermann, Obligations, 451; Kaser, Privatrecht, 572. 123 Zimmermann, Obligations, 451. Cf. Daube, “Societas,” 391. 124 Del Chiaro, Le contrat, 155–56; Szlechter, Le contrat, 278–81. 125 Del Chiaro, Le contrat, 156. 126 Del Chiaro, Le contrat, 61. 127 Berger, EDRL, s.v. obligatio, 603. Cf. Zimmermann, Obligations, 5. 128 See especially Arangio-Ruiz, La società, 70–78. 129 The Roman reciprocal notion of obligatio is quite difficult for modern westerners to grasp in that, in Roman law, “an obligation was conceived as a legal relationship between two individuals under which one acquired a right and the other the correlative duty” (while, in English, we generally simply understand an obligation to refer to a debtor’s duty, and not a creditor’s right). Metzger, Companion, 127. Cf. Zimmermann, Obligations, 1; Crook, Law, 215. 130 Cf. Buckland, Text-Book, 481; Zimmermann, Obligations, 454; Watson, “Evolution,” 8.

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

333

sensus was needed to constitute the contract – no writing, no particular words, no presence of parties, no handing over of anything.”131 Indeed, the basic requirements were: des apports réciproques (lesquels peuvent être inégaux), un intérêt commun, un but licite, enfin la volonté formelle de former une société (affectus societatis), sans doute manifestée dans un contrat, du type de ceux que nous connaissons pour des banquiers par les triptyques de Transylvanie.132

What these basic definitions introduce us to, which is what distinguishes societas from modern forms of partnership the most, is that it could be established for the pursuit of non-capitalistic aims and lacked entirely contractual formalism (Gaius, Inst. 3.136). A societas was initiated and terminated by the mere intention of the socii, the affectus/affectio societatis, which was the source of the consensus between the partners on which the partnership was based (Gaius, Inst. 3.135; Dig. 17.2.31).133 Unlike modern contracts, and other Roman contracts such as emptio and venditio (i.e., purchase and sale), which necessitated the delivery of some goods (res) and the use of verbal or written forms (verba and litterae/scripturae), consensus was all that was required to render the societas effective. It could simply be expressed orally, in writing, or even tacitly (tacite), i.e., by some “gesture or other behavior leaving no doubt as to the consent of the party” (cf. Dig. 17.2.4 pr.).134 In fact, if a stipulatio, that is, a formulaic promissory declaration in the form of a question and answer,135 was added to the initial societas agreement, it could in theory invalidate it as a consensual contract (cf. Dig. 17.2.71).136 131

Crook, Law, 214–15. One of the rare restrictions was that partners could not be dependent on each other’s potestas (cf. Dig. 17.2.18). A master could therefore not form a societas with his slave, though it was possible to do so with someone else’s slave (cf. Dig.17.2.24, 17.2.58.3). 132 Nicolet, “Deux remarques,” in Censeurs, 299. 133 See Arangio-Ruiz, La società, 63–70; Berger, EDRL, s.v. affectio societatis, 356; s.v. societas, 708. 134 Berger, EDRL, s.v. consensus, 408. Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, 116; Watson, Obligations, 128–31; Crook, Law, 214–15. 135 The creditor would typically ask: do you promise (spondesne) to give/do something (whatever it might be)? To which the debtor replied in a way that matched the question (i.e., using the same verb): I promise (spondeo) to give/do something. See Berger, EDRL, s.v. stipulatio 716–17; Watson, Obligations, 1–9. 136 But note the stipulatio poenae (i.e., stipulatio concerning penalties to be paid if the contract is not respected) concluding the Dacian societas danistariae (CIL III, pp. 950– 51): Id d(ari) f(ieri) p(raestari)que stipulatus est Cassius Frontin[us, spopon]dit Iul(ius) Alexander (ll. 18–19), i.e., “[f]or these things so to be done promise called for by Cassius Frontinus, duly given by Julius Alexander” (trans. in Crook, Law, 232). Johnston suggests that it “simply betrays a misunderstanding of the law,” while Pólay has explained it as “a Hellenistic feature.” However, the jurists Paul and Ulpian did seem to allow such

334

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

What may also be surprising for moderns is that the modalities and modus operandi of the societas were left to the responsibility of the socii: “there were no legal rules determining the internal relationship among the partners, and the details of how they set about pursuing their common purpose were left entirely to their mutual good understanding.”137 The reason for this peculiarity is that “lawyers were loath to intervene in an existing and functioning unit.”138 Unless it concerned one particular transaction or course of action (as in the case of a societas unius rei, which was terminated once its main purpose was fulfilled), the societas lasted as long as the partners remained of the same mind (in eodem sensus perseuerant), true to their original agreement (Gaius, Inst. 3.151; cf. Justinian, Inst. 3.25.4; Dig. 17.2.1 pr.).139 Should consensus cease due to the death of a socius,140 the emergence of dissensus (mutual disagreement), renuntiatio (withdrawal) of one of the socii (cf. Dig. 17.2.4.1, 17.2.17.2, 17.2.65.8),141 or the initiation of a legal action (actio pro socio) as a tacit renuntiatio (cf. Dig. 17.2.63.10, 17.2.65 pr.),142 the societas, whether it was bilateral or plurilateral, was then dissolved immediately and automatically (Gaius, Inst. 3.151–153; Justinian, Inst. 3.25.4–5).143 Accounts were settled. Instipulatio if they related to penalties (Ulpian, Dig. 17.2.41–42; Paul, Dig. 17.2.71). Johnston, Roman Law, 107; Pólay, Contracts, 11. Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, 214, 293. 137 Zimmermann, Obligations, 457. Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, v: “Pour les jurisconsultes classiques, le contrat de société devait donc se présenter comme un contrat particulièrement souple et susceptible de donner satisfaction aux volontés les plus diverses des contractants. Libres d’adopter à leur gré soit la societas omnium bonorum, soit la societas alicuius negotiationis, soit la societas unius rei, ils pouvaient également par leur pacte social régler librement leurs rapports futurs. Toute clause licite et conforme au caractère de bonne foi comme au but économique de toute société, pouvait y être introduite.” 138 Zimmermann, Obligations, 457. 139 Cf. Zimmermann, Obligations, 451. 140 Death may not have been a reason for the termination of the societas in the Republican period. See Watson’s discussion of Cicero’s speech pro Quinctio. Watson, Obligations, 131–34. 141 The procedure of renuntiatio when it involved several partners remains disputed, however. See Wieslaw Litewski, “Remarques sur la dissolution de la société en droit romain,” RD 50 (1972): 70–82; J. A. C. Thomas, “Solutio societatis ex actione and dissensus sociorum,” Tulane Law Review 48 (1974): 1106–1110; Zimmermann, Obligations, 455–56. 142 The matter remains debated. See Thomas, “Solutio,” 1099–1110. 143 Gaius includes the loss of status (capitis deminutio), which equated to death, and the insolvency of one of the partners as additional reasons for the dissolution of the societas (Gaius, Inst. 3.153–154; cf. Justinian, Inst. 3.25.7–8; Dig. 17.2.4.1). Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, 199–200, 249–85; Arangio-Ruiz, La società, 150–711; Buckland, TextBook, 510–11; Zimmermann, Obligations, 455–57; Metzger, Companion, 165; Berger, EDRL, s.v. societas, 708.

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

335

curred debts were paid off from the common fund (Dig. 17.2.27), profits and losses were divided according to the terms of the original agreement or, in the absence of it, in equal proportions (Gaius, Inst. 3.149–150; Justinian, Inst. 3.25.1; Dig. 17.2.29 pr.).144 By virtue of its consensual nature, societas was thus governed by the precept of bona fides, i.e., “the reciprocal confidence, honesty, good faith of the parties, at both the conclusion and the execution of the assumed duties” (cf. Cicero, Quinct. 4.26: fide societas … colitur, i.e., partnership is cultivated by trust).145 In essence, fides functioned as the “lien de tous les associés et formant une espèce de communauté entre eux.”146 Conversely, the occurrence of mala fides (dishonesty), fraus (fraud), dolus malus (deceit), culpa levis (minor negligence),147 or even a substantial loss or damages to common property (cf. Dig. 17.2.47–49), could lead one partner to initiate an actio pro socio against the other(s) (Justinian, Inst. 3.25.9).148 The legal action naturally implied “an allegation of breach of faith” and “aimed at a condemnation which in turn entailed infamia.”149 Although the actio could be granted while the societas was still operating (manente societate), in effect it rendered the dissolution of the societas definite, since the fides necessary for the good conduct of the partnership was undermined (Dig. 17.2.63.10, 17.2.65 pr.).150 What is perhaps most important for us to grasp at this point, that which many of Sampley’s critics seem to have misunderstood,151 is that a societas was not held together by its legal status. Consensus was the binding force 144

The question of the distribution of profits and losses amongst the partners remained a matter of disagreement amongst the jurists themselves, however (cf. Justinian, Inst. 3.25.2). Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, 279; Buckland, Text-Book, 508; Zimmermann, Obligations, 458–60; Metzger, Companion, 164. 145 Berger, EDRL, s.v. bona fides, 374. Cf. Zimmermann, Obligations, 454; Metzger, Companion, 164. 146 Litewski, “Remarques,” 82. 147 For basic definitions of these terms, see Berger, EDRL, s.v. culpa levis, 420; dolus, 440; fraus, 477; mala fides, 573. 148 Fraus and dolus malus were sufficient reasons to invalidate the partnership (Dig. 17.2.3.3). 149 Zimmermann, Obligations, 460–64 (citation on p. 460). Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, 87; Metzger, Companion, 164–65. 150 It remains debated whether the actio pro socio had for immediate effect the dissolution of the societas. See Thomas, “Solutio”. For a detailed discussion of the mechanisms of the actio pro socio, see del Chiaro, Le contrat, 191–220; Szlechter, Le contrat, 371–40, Arangio-Ruiz, La società, 172–200. Del Chiaro did not think that the actio signified the end of the societas, however (see pp. 199–200). 151 E.g., Bormann, Philippi, 187; Reumann, Philippians, 147. Reumann’s rhetorical question is particular illustrative of commentators’ lack of understanding of societas: “Would Philippian Christians have gone to court to ‘legalize’ their association …?” Of course not. They did not need to.

336

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

between the socii. The distinction is subtle yet crucial, for it is counterintuitive to moderns for whom the legality of a contract is what ensures, indeed enforces, its implementation. The Romans would have thought otherwise, considering consensus and fides as the relational bond between socii and the guarantee that obligations would be fulfilled. Law played a role only when a prejudice occurred which could not be resolved amicably between the socii and which needed to be adjudicated by an authorised third party. In other words, the actio pro socio “did not aim at enforcing the obligations of the partners to make contributions to the (existing) societas; it was concerned, solely, with a general settlement of accounts between the two (ex-)partners involved in the litigation.”152 At most, it served as a deterrent against fraudulent behaviour. In sum, consensus alone, on the basis of bona fides, ensured the prosperity and longevity of the societas. As regards partners’ contributions, they need not have been of equal amount or of similar kind (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.149–150; Justinian, Inst. 3.25.2; Dig. 17.2.6, 80). One socius might have provided pecunia (funds), while another the opera and/or ars (labour and/or skill), or a combination of both (Dig. 17.2.5, 17.2.52.7).153 Thus, as Broekaert has observed, “[a] societas in which one partner supplied the starting capital, a second adduced some merchandize and transport means, and a third offered services and experience, would have been perfectly legal.”154 What is important to note is that each had to contribute something, lest it be considered a donatio (cf. Dig. 17.2.5.1),155 and that, in the absence of an agreement explicitly stating otherwise, the assets contributed became the common property of the socii (Dig. 17.2.3.1, 17.2.52.2–3, 17.2.58 pr.–1).156 A societas was not limited to two partners, but could include several, provided they all consented (cf. Justinian, Inst. 3.25.5).157 Unlike modern partnerships, however, socii remained individually liable for their own transactions or obligations contracted with third parties158 – except perhaps

152

Zimmermann, Obligations, 460 (emphasis added). Szlechter, Le contrat, 267, 272–78; Crook, Law, 230. 154 Broekaert, “Joining Forces,” 224. 155 Buckland, Text-Book, 507. 156 The matter is complex, not directly addressed by the Roman jurists, and largely debated amongst medieval and Renaissance jurists. This conclusion nonetheless seems to make the most sense of the available evidence. See Beinart, “Capital,” 123–24. 157 Zimmermann, Obligations, 454. 158 There seems to have been one or two diverging opinions on this point, however (cf. Dig. 17.2.82, 84). Cf. Buckland, Text-Book, 507, 509; Zimmermann, Obligations, 455, 467–68; Metzger, Companion, 163–64; Ulrike M. Malmendier, “Roman Shares,” in The Origins of Value: The Financial Innovations that Created Modern Capital Markets 153

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

337

in the case of the societas publicanorum, which may have held juristic personality, though this remains greatly debated.159 The administration of the societas was shared among its partners, or entrusted to a manager and/or socius (cf. Dig. 17.2.16.pr). Its capital and/or asset(s) included the content of its arca communis (cf. Dig. 3.4.1.1, 17.2.82),160 and could either be owned in common or put to common use (Dig. 3.4.1.1, 17.2.67 pr.).161 Socii were accountable for expenditures incurred while engaged in activities relating to the societas and could claim compensations by providing receipts (cf. Dig. 17.2.27, 17.2.52.15).162 Within this general framework, four main types of partnership have generally been identified:163 1. Societas unius rei (cf. Justinian, Inst. 3.25.6; Dig. 17.2.5 pr.): a partnership towards a particular, profitable or non-profitable, objective or course of action, such as the purchase of a piece of property (Dig. 17.2.52.12–13), the management of a shop or an estate (cf. Cicero, Quinct.), or the training and exploitation of a slave (cf. Cicero, Rosc. com.). 2. Societas alicuius negotiationis (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.148; Justinian, Inst. 3.25 pr.): a partnership in a business enterprise of some sort – by far the most common.164 This included societates argentariorum (Dig. 2.14.25 pr., 2.14.27 pr., 4.8.34; Rhet. Her. 2.13.19),165 and societates publicanorum/vectigalis (tax-farming partnerships; cf. Dig. 17.2.5), which followed specific rules that need not concern us here.166 3. Societas omnium/universorum bonorum quae ex quaestu veniunt (cf. Dig. 17.2.7): a partnership for all (non-specific) business affairs, which involved a sharing of the reve(eds. W. N. Goetzmann and K. G. Rouwenhorst; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 31–42; Abatino et al., “Depersonalization,” 368–69. 159 Cf. Buckland, Text-Book, 513; Zimmermann, Obligations, 468; Abatino et al., “Depersonalization,” 369–70. 160 Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, 81; Cimma, Ricerche, 197–205. 161 Cf. Szlechter, Le contrat, 271–72; Buckland, Text-Book, 508. 162 Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, 172; Buckland, Text-Book, 509. 163 Gaius seems to have known only two kinds (in addition to the archaic ercto non cito): societas omnium bonorum and societas alicuius negotiationis (Inst. 3.148; cf. Justinian, Inst. 3.25 pr.). For helpful discussions of these various types of societas, see Arangio-Ruiz, La società, 116–49; Buckland, Text-Book, 507–14; Zulueta, Institutes, 179– 80; Watson, Obligations, 134–37; Metzger, Companion, 163; Daube, “Societas,” 381–82; Zimmermann, Obligations, 451–55; Berger, EDRL, s.v. societas, soc. omnium bonorum, soc. unius negotii, soc. unius rei, soc. vectigalium, 708–709. 164 E.g., Dig. 17.2.52.4 (cloak business); Dig. 21.1.44.1 (slave trading). 165 Cf. Andreau, La vie financière, 629–30. 166 The secondary literature on societates publicanorum/vectigalis is considerable. Standard studies remain Kniep, Societas Publicanorum; Ivanov, De societatibus; Badian, Publicans; Cimma, Ricerche; and Ulrike Malmendier, Societas Publicanorum: Staatliche Wirtschaftsaktivitäten in den Händen privater Unternehmer (Cologne: Böhlau, 2002). Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, 83–84; Szlechter, Le contrat, 320–70; G. Ürögdi, “Publicani,” PWSup 11:1183–1208; Brunt, “Publicans”; Nicolet, Censeurs, 297–462; Buckland, TextBook, 512–13.

338

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

nues generated by whatever purchase (emptio), sale (venditio), letting (locatio), or hiring (conductio), had been conducted. This was the default societas arrangement when its actual purpose was unclear.167 4. Societas omnium/universorum bonorum (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.148; Justinian, Inst. 3.25 pr.; Dig. 17.2.1.1, 17.2.1.3.1): a partnership whereby all of the partners’ assets were put in common, and which is unlikely to have been very common in classical times (ca. A.D. 1– 250).168

Naturally, this classification is that of the jurists themselves, and it is not certain that the ordinary person entering into a societas would have discerned the subtle differences between each of these. It was sufficient that they knew the purpose and terms of the societas, which is usually the main information that non-legal sources record. Nevertheless, for the sake of our study, it is useful that we indulge in a speculative exercise of legal interpretation and seek to determine in which category ancient jurists might have placed Paul’s κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. Given its non-commercial character, options 2) and 3) may be immediately ruled out, which leaves only two possibilities. The fact that societas omnium bonorum was uncommon in the classical period, and that no mention is ever made in the NT of Paul’s joint-ownership of particular assets with the Philippians, makes the final choice fairly obvious. Paul’s κοινωνία consisted of a societas unius rei, whose primary, non-profitable objective or course of action (res) was the εὐαγγέλιον, i.e., the proclamation of the gospel. Rather than labelling Paul’s κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον as a societas Christi,169 it may therefore be best described as a societas evangelii. The basic characteristics of societas being thus laid out, we may now focus our attention on the history, structure, and significance of Paul’s κοινωνία with the Philippians.

8.5 A History of Paul’s Κοινωνία with the Philippians The preceding examination of Roman societas should now enable us to explain more precisely how Paul’s κοινωνία with the Philippians might have operated. We shall also herein offer a reflection as to the potential reasons and significance of Paul’s preferred modus operandi. To begin with, however, we ought to recognise that our knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the formation and implementation of this κοινωνία is extremely limited. Just as with the agreement alluded to in Galatians 2:9, 167

Zimmermann, Obligations, 454. Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, 112–14. Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, 109–12; Arangio-Ruiz, La società, 120–35; Buckland, Text-Book, 507, 513–14; Zimmermann, Obligations, 452–54. 169 Sampley, Partnership, 51. 168

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

339

we have no insight into prior discussions or negotiations between the parties concerned. Nor are we told anything as to who may have initiated the partnership or what its terms may have been. The following reconstruction can thus only represent an exercise in historical imagination that is controlled by the evidence contained in Philippians and by our understanding of Roman societas. What remains particularly unclear is when this κοινωνία became effective. From Paul’s perspective, it seems to have become truly operative as soon as he left Macedonia (4:15; cf. 1:5),170 and perhaps as early as his arrival at Thessalonica (4:16), which is somewhat confusing since Thessalonica was the provincial capital of Roman Macedonia.171 Unless one assumes that Paul had an approximate appreciation of geography and considered Thessalonica to be located outside of Macedonia, which seems unlikely, his description of the sequence of events thus appears rather incoherent. Noting that, in a temporal clause (cf. ὅτε, 4:15), there could be a certain (chronological) “relativité” between two aorist verbs, Fleury posited that the second aorist ἐκοινώνησεν referred to an anterior action to that evoked by ἐξῆλθον.172 Thus, he understood that the partnership had been agreed in Philippi, in fact as soon as Paul entered Lydia’s house, and translated verse 15 as follows: “quand je sortis de Macédoine, aucune église ne m’avait associé” (i.e., when I left Macedonia, no church had partnered with me).173 The immediacy of the formation of the κοινωνία is probably exaggerated, however. One would expect an intermediate period during which Paul and the Philippians would have become better acquainted with one another before a partnership was struck. It may actually be that the societas was tacitly inaugurated by Paul’s acceptance of their material assistance while in Thessalonica, which may have accompanied an explicit offer to estab170 As we have noted in a footnote in section 7.3.2, the prepositional phrase ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου in 4:15 must be related to the temporal clause ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας immediately following it, and must therefore be understood as referring to the beginning of a new missionary journey as he left Macedonia. 171 Cf. F. Geyer, “Makedonia,” PW[1] 13.2: 764; N. G. L. Hammond, “Thessalonica,” OCD3, p. 1510. 172 Fleury, “société,” 48. Against Fleury’s explanation, it may be remarked that one would rather expect the aorist verb in the temporal clause, ἐξῆλθον here, to refer to an anterior action to that of the main verb ἐκοινώνησεν (hence, when I had left Macedonia, no church partnered with me). Cf. Lightfoot, Philippians, 165; Plummer, Philippians, 103; O’Brien, Philippians, 532–33; Fee, Philippians, 441. See also Smyth who lists ὅτε amongst the conjunctions that introduce a temporal clause indicating contemporaneity with the main verb. Blass and Robertson, on the other hand, remain silent on the question. Smyth, Grammar, 363; Blass, Grammar, §65.9, p.218–19; Robertson, Grammar, 970–72. 173 Fleury, “société,” 48 (emphasis added).

340

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

lish a partnership. The connective marker καί, which immediately follows the conjunction ὅτι and which should be understood in the sense of even, indeed seems to be the key to verse 16.174 It suggests that the Philippians had already agreed to support Paul in his missions and proceeded to do so on a regular basis (καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δίς) even from the time he stayed in Thessalonica. His departure from Philippi can therefore safely be considered as the terminus post quem for the effective implementation of the partnership (which implies that Paul did not receive any assistance from the Philippians while ministering to them). Unless the duration of the κοινωνία had been agreed at its inception, it would have lasted as long as they consented to cooperate, that is, as long as they remained in eodem sensu (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.151), or until they considered its purpose to have been fulfilled (cf. Dig. 17.2.65.10), which could have taken several years. Paul’s letter itself suggests that their κοινωνία was still active a decade or so later,175 though his contained sigh of relief at 4:10 seems to indicate that he may have thought that it was all over. His imprisonment and inability to pursue his missionary activities freely could have brought their societas to an end, while their withdrawing support could have meant a tacit renuntiatio of the partnership. Epaphroditus’ arrival would prove the contrary, however, much to Paul’s delight. What is more difficult to answer still is the question of who initiated the partnership, for Paul is simply silent on the matter. He may have himself requested the Philippians to partner with him, or they may have been the first to offer to do so. It is even possible that a proposal to form a κοινωνία accompanied their first contribution while he was in Thessalonica, and that, as we proposed above, his acceptance of their δόµα signified his tacit agreement to the partnership. Whatever the case may be, what is clear enough is that both Paul and the Philippians consented to the societas, whether expressly or tacitly, since no partnership could be formed without 174

Cf. Meyer, Philippians, 223; Vincent, Philippians, 148. Neither the date of Paul’s initial visit to Philippi nor that of his letter is known with certainty. Following Knox’ early chronology, which places the beginning of Paul’s evangelistic ventures between A.D. 37–40 and proposes a date no earlier than A.D. 47– 53 for Paul’s composition of Philippians (whilst in Ephesus possibly), a gap of about seven to ten years is reached between his arrival at Philippi and canonical Philippians. The later, traditional chronology, which relies more on Acts and on the Delphic inscription mentioning the proconsul Gallio (ca. A.D. 52), does not widen this gap very much as it suggests the periods A.D. 48–52 for Paul’s ministry in Philippi and A.D. 56–62 for the imprisonment during which Paul wrote his letter. The question becomes more complex if one rejects the literary unity of the letter, however. See Knox, Chapters, 85–87; Lee M. McDonald and Stanley E. Porter, Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000), 367–72. Cf. Vielhauer, Geschichte, 70–81; Alfred Suhl, “Paulinische Chronologie im Streit der Meinungen,” ANRW 26.2:939–1188. 175

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

341

the consensus of each involved. In other words, regardless of who took the initiative, both parties fully endorsed the decision to associate, decision which could not be forcefully imposed on any of the socii. For it was made freely and voluntarily, i.e., ἑκουσίως καὶ αὐθαιρέτως, as is often expressed in papyri.176 This necessarily implies that, even if the Philippians were the ones to have suggested the idea originally, Paul must have wholeheartedly approved of the partnership. If, on the other hand, it is assumed that he instigated the κοινωνία, which is a strong possibility, then it would signify that Paul himself took a very proactive and strategic approach towards the organisation and funding of his mission. It would refute the idea that he was altogether unconcerned by these questions or a reluctant recipient of the Philippians’ support. After all, if Paul felt as compelled to preach the gospel as he claims to have been (cf. 1 Cor 9:16–17), why would he not have availed himself of an effective means to ensure the successful completion of his mission? Yet, what is perhaps more essential for us to consider is how Paul’s κοινωνία may have operated. Once again, we are left somewhat guessing given the paucity of our evidence. Valuable insight can nonetheless be gleaned from a proper understanding of the mechanisms of societas and from documentary examples of partnerships. As we have previously explained, the primary purpose of a societas was to pool resources, be it human (e.g., slaves, labour), material (e.g., tools, facilities), or financial, towards the fulfilment of a common objective. In the case of Paul’s κοινωνία with the Philippians, we have argued that it consisted of a societas unius rei whose sole, non-profitable goal or course of action (res) was to promote the εὐαγγέλιον, that is, to advance the gospel (cf. προκοπή, 1:12), through its proclamation and the establishment of faith communities. From this basic recognition, several important deductions can be made. First of all, contrary to what Fleury asserted, Paul’s societas evangelii did not constitute a mercantile enterprise as such, i.e., a societas negotiationis. This may seem obvious enough but it needs to be re-emphasised. As we have remarked in our previous chapter, Paul’s κοινωνία with the Philippians is never described as a κοινωνία εἰς τὸ σκηνοποιόν, a κοινωνία τὴν πορφυροπωλικήν, or a κοινωνία τὴν κοινὴν τέχνην/ ἐργασίαν/ πραγµατείαν, but as a κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (1:5). This implies that the activities of the societas did not generate any economic profit from which socii would have received a share, even though it contributed to the advancement of a common interest. As we have pointed out in our previous chapter, its καρπός was purely non-pecuniary and consisted of the effective propagation of the εὐαγγέλιον and the expansion of Christ’s ἐκκλησία, 176

See P.Lips. I 21 (A.D. 382); BGU XIX 2817 (A.D. 500); P.Horak 10 (A.D. 555) in appendix B.

342

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

which could have only been measured concretely in terms of the number of converts won and of faith communities established. This being said, Paul’s κοινωνία did involve some economic transactions, which is made evident by his business discourse of 4:15–20. As we have argued at length, the λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως mentioned in 4:15 suggests that Paul and the Philippians had mutually agreed to establish and administer a common account, a missionary foundation, into which sums of money were deposited (λήµψεις) and withdrawn (δόσεις). Although the purpose of the funds is never explicitly stated (since it was obvious enough to all involved), it is permissible, indeed logical, to assume that they were employed to cover the expenditures incurred by the operations of the societas, such as accommodation or transportation costs (cf. Dig. 17.2. 52.15).177 Similarly, based on the available evidence, it is imaginable that the Philippians were the primary, perhaps the only, contributors to the fund, although it is possible that Paul and his co-workers sometimes provided some capital from whatever meagre income they earned through their manual labour. In the light of the basic structure of societas and the evidence of 4:15– 20, one may nonetheless presume that Paul’s main obligation was rather to supply to the partnership his own efforts, time, energy, skills, and missionary experience in promoting the gospel. While this arrangement may seem odd, and perhaps unfair to the socii who provided financial resources, it is in fact well attested in literary and documentary sources (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.149; Dig. 17.2.5–6, 17.2.52.7; Cicero, Rosc. com. 10.27– 12.37, Quinct. 3.12).178 The cheirographon T.Sulpicii 66 (A.D. 29) is a good example of a similar distribution of responsibilities amongst the partners, whereby one party invested funds (pecunia), while the other supplied labour (opera).179 In this case, which may be the earliest piece of evidence of a “lien entre artisanat et capital financier,”180 the craftsman M. Caelius Maximus acknowledges his debt (scripsi me debere) of a sum of 3,000 177

Cf. Del Chiaro, Le contrat, 172. Cicero’s two orations, Pro Quinctio and Pro Roscio comoedo, also make mention of partnerships whereby one party provided assets and the other the labour or the managerial expertise. In the first case, C. Quinctius and S. Naevius formed a societas whereby Naevius managed Quinctius’ agricultural estate. In the second instance, C. Fannius entrusted his slave Panurgus to Roscius, with whom he formed a societas, in order to train and employ him as a comedian and to share equally the profits generated by his performances. Cf. del Chiaro, Le contrat, 62–63; Szlechter, Le contrat, 275–78. 179 Cf. P.Cair.Masp. II 67158 (A.D. 568), a contract in which the signatories simply agree to partner in a common business (ὁ[µ]ολογοῦµεν … συνεργάζασθαι ἀλλήλοις εἰς τὴν κοινὴν ἡµῶν πραγµατείαν̣; ll. 10–13), and to share in its losses and profits (l. 19), though without mentioning any capital investments. Cf. FIRA2 3.158; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 393. 180 AE 2000 (2003): 128, #330. 178

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

343

sesterces, which the financier C. Sulpicius Faustus maior has agreed (conuenit, l. 8) to contribute to the societas for the sale of verdigris (aerugo).181 The sum herein invested by Sulpicius appears disproportionate compared to Caelius’ labour input, but as Gaius explains, one’s opera was often more valuable than one’s pecunia (saepe enim opera alicuius pro pecunia ualet, Gaius, Inst. 3.149; cf. Dig. 17.2.29.1, 17.2.80).182 Understood within the framework of societas, the Philippians’ material assistance acknowledged in 4:16 and 4:18 can thus be better appreciated as their regular contribution to the account of the partnership. That is to say, it did not represent a friendly gift (i.e., χάρισµα, δῶρον, donatio), an act of charity (i.e., ἐλεηµοσύνη), or a loan (i.e., ἔρανος, δάνειον, mutuum),183 but corresponded to their investment to the capital of the societas. Paul would have then used the funds to pay for the operational and logistical costs of the partnership as he proceeded to fulfil its objective, that is, as he engaged in missionary activities. His business discourse and his ready acceptance of the Philippians’ δόµα can now be more easily explained. Paul considered the δόµα to represent their share of the capital of the κοινωνία, which, as one of the socii, he could utilize to achieve the purpose for which the partnership had been established. To employ the funds 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).184 His acceptance of the gift was therefore neither a denial of his Christ-empowered αὐτάρκεια nor a sign of covetousness, in contrast with those who preached the gospel out of envy (φθόνος), strife (ἔρις), and selfish ambitions (ἐριθεία; 1:15–17). His heart was not set on the Philippians’ δόµα itself, on personal gains at the detriment of his κοινωνοί, but (ἀλλά) he was eager (to continue) to bear fruit (καρπός) for the societas (cf. 4:17). Inasmuch as the

181 The verb conuenit provides the clue to the nature of this agreement. In context, “le terme … fait allusion à l’accord qui, dans le contrat de societas, établissait la répartition des gains entre les associés” (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.150). AE 2000 (2003): 128, #330. 182 Although the chirographum does not stipulate how profits should be distributed, it seems reasonable to assume that they would have been divided in proportion equal to the original investment (cf. Dig. 17.2.29 pr.). 183 Note: the basic characteristics of ἔρανος loans amongst friends remain a moot point (especially vis-à-vis the question of interests). It seems quite clear, however, that their purpose was to assist with urgent personal financial needs such as those occasioned by weddings, banquets, funerals, ransoms, or even manumissions. See LSJ, s.v. ἔρανος; E. Ziebarth, “Ἔρανος,” PW[1] 6: 328–30; Finley, Studies, 85–87, 100–106; Millett, Lending, 153–59; Edward E. Cohen, Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking Perspective (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 207–15. 184 For instance, a partner could not withdraw from a societas in order to enjoy its profits by himself (ut obveniens aliquod lucrum solus habeat). Cf. Zimmermann, Obligations, 460–65.

344

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

δόµα maintained him alive, he was in fact confident that he would be able to do so: εἰ δὲ τὸ ζῆν ἐν σαρκί, τοῦτό µοι καρπὸς ἔργου (1:22). His acknowledgement of Epaphroditus’ delivery of the supplies and/or money by means of the invoicing term ἀπέχω can thus be understood as simply informing the Philippians that the transaction performed to the account of the societas had been duly completed. Paul was now in full possession of all that was due to him as a partner. In a sense, the sentence ἀπέχω πάντα (πεπλήρωµαι/ἐκ πλήρους) is equivalent to our modern stamp paid, which is applied to invoices when they have been honoured. Contrary to what Fleury asserted, this does not necessarily imply that Paul thereby terminated the partnership.185 As opposed to the verb λογοποιέω,186 ἀπέχω does not signify that accounts are to be settled, outstanding debts paid and profits shared. Rather, it simply expresses that whatever is owed has been fully received. Yet, it is also conceivable that Paul’s formal acknowledgement was aimed at confirming that Epaphroditus’ leitourgia had been dutifully performed, and was thus meant to exonerate him from any possible charges of embezzlement.187 As a matter of fact, he had fulfilled his duty at the peril of his own life, which earned him a warm recommendation from Paul, and which deserved the recognition of the community (cf. 2:25–30). We may now bring this discussion to a close by reflecting upon the significance of our proposed interpretation of Paul’s κοινωνία with the Philippians. As we have briefly remarked at the start of this section, one of the most significant deductions is that Paul appears to have adopted a much more proactive and strategic approach towards the organisation and the funding of his mission than what has generally been assumed. The reasons for his appropriation of this particular economic model may have been multiple, but, in our opinion, it was probably motivated by two major factors: 1) the flexible structure of societas itself; 2) the opportunity it afforded him to circumvent what may be broadly described as patronage and to remain free from its social obligations. In our previous section, we have highlighted that societas enabled a more efficient division of labour between passive and active partners by optimizing their unequal resources and skills. It allowed people with lim185

Fleury, “société,” 55–56. See P.Mich. V 228 mentioned in section 7.3.3. Cf. P.Ryl. II 141, 144; SB XXII 15460; P.Oxy. III 486 R, XIX 2234; LSJ, s.v. λογοποιέω. 187 See with what care Paul also proceeds in his commendation of the Macedonian delegates who are to escort the collection to Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:18–24; cf. 1 Cor 16:3–4). His emphasis on the need for the Corinthians to contribute generously, joyfully, and not begrudgingly, suggests that the whole endeavour could have been perceived as extortion (cf. πλεονεξία, 2 Cor 9:5). Cf. Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief, 275; Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 72–82, 96; Downs, Offering, 138–40. 186

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

345

ited means to invest in commercial (or non-commercial) activities, and facilitated a more even (or proportionate) distribution of the capital investments and operational costs amongst the socii.188 What is more, its “inherent flexibility” permitted “a wide range of organizational combinations, by which people with a very different social and economic background were given the opportunity to join a partnership.”189 For example, a merchant who only had enough funds to purchase a ship but lacked resources to man it and load it with commercial cargo, could establish a partnership with one or several socii who would supplement the remaining necessary investment, skills, and experience. Thus, he could avoid contracting an expensive loan and remained financially independent from external creditors.190 From a socio-economic point of view, it is not difficult to see why Paul would have found societas to be an effective strategy to raise finances for his missionary activities. For it enabled him to make the most of limited financial and/or human resources without having to become dependent on wealthier individuals, who, for all intents and purposes, would have assumed a patronage role over him. Societas allowed him to combine, in the most productive way possible, his own missionary expertise with the resources of a few individuals, who would have become his partners in his mission. They may have been as few as two or three to begin with, but could have later been joined by others who also wished to take part in his missionary enterprise. As we have noted, Roman law placed no particular restriction on the numbers of partners involved, which could have been as many as fifty, as is suggested by Cato’s example (Plutarch, Cat. Maj. 21.6).191 A plurilateral societas might have posed legal difficulties only in the case of the renuntiatio of one or several of the partners.192 Overall, the socio-economic advantages of societas must have surpassed the legal hazards intrinsically associated with it. Yet, as a craftsman, Paul’s commercial activities would have always presented some legal risks and exposed him to the possibility of being prosecuted by either some dissatisfied customers or some disgruntled competitors (cf. Acts 16:16–24, 19:23–41). A simple purchase, a sale, a lease, or even a marriage contract (because of the dowry and/or transfer of property), were never without legal implications and could potentially bring one before a magistrate. 188

Cf. Johnston, Roman Law, 107; Broekaert, “Joining Forces,” 224. Broekaert, “Joining Forces,” 224. 190 Broekaert, “Joining Forces,” 227. 191 See our discussion in section 5.4. 192 As noted earlier, it is not clear whether the renuntiatio of one socius cancelled the societas with all the others, who then had to form a new societas (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.153), or whether it left it intact. See Litewski, “Remarques”; Thomas, “Solutio”; Zimmermann, Obligations, 455–56. 189

346

Part Two: Exegetical and Socio-Economic Analysis

Such was (and still is) life in a highly legalised environment. To reject categorically, as many of Sampley’s detractors have done, the idea that Paul adopted societas as a strategic model because he protested against the Corinthians’ appeal to civic courts is simply not giving enough consideration to Paul’s socio-cultural environment (cf. 1 Cor 6). It may be as pertinent as suggesting that none of the first Christians ever bought or sold properties (cf. Acts 4:34–5:2), ever gave their children in marriage (cf. 1 Cor 7:1–17), or ever engaged in business activities (cf. Luke 5:2–11; Acts 18:3). In any case, the risks associated with Paul’s κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον may not have been as serious as it may first appear. Partners would not have been able to sue each other with regard to the economic gains of the partnership since none was to be made. At most, Paul could have only been accused of having embezzled the funds of the societas or having used them inappropriately, that is, for a purpose other than that initially agreed (cf. Dig. 17.2.45). However, he did not need to form a societas for such allegations to be levelled against him (cf. 2 Cor 12:16).193 From a sociological point of view, societas would have ensured a greater level of participation and a greater sense of ownership amongst all involved, since each had a vested interest in the outcome of the partnership. Thus, it would have allowed the Philippians to participate fully in Paul’s missionary effort and in the advance (προκοπή) of the gospel, and would have given them a sense of shared accomplishment and significance. Furthermore, because it could not be formed between persons legally dependent on each other (i.e., with someone under one’s potestas; cf. Dig. 17.2. 18, 17.2.24, 17.2.58.3), societas generally lacked a “rigorous hierarchy” and afforded more entrepreneurial freedom to socii.194 Although it did not prevent a patronus from entering into a partnership with one or several of his freed(wo)men, it would have somewhat attenuated the asymmetrical and hierarchical nature of the patronal relationship. An authoritative patron (or matron)195 might still have tried to impose his (or her) way, but formerly dependent socii could have easily terminated the partnership at any time. As Broekaert has rightly emphasised, “[c]onsent and deliberation remained essential.”196 Consensus thus being the guiding principle, the Philippians would not have been able to manipulate or to impose their agenda on Paul, who would have retained a large degree of freedom and initiative 193

Cf. Betz, Apostel Paulus, 104–106; Winter, Philo and Paul, 228–29. Broekaert, “Joining Forces, 234. 195 Women were particularly active in small scales commercial activities and also formed societas. Most of them seem to have been freedwomen or slaves, however. See for instance Piotr Berdowski, “Roman Businesswomen. I: The Case of the Producers and Distributors of Garum in Pompeii,” Analecta Archaeologica Ressoviensia 3 (2008): 251– 72. Cf. Knapp, Romans, 80–90. 196 Broekaert, “Joining Forces, 234. 194

Chapter 8: Socio-Economic Analysis

347

to act in the best interest of the κοινωνία as he saw fit. This does not mean that Paul was not accountable to his socii, however.197 His report on the progress of the gospel in 1:12–18 and his formal acknowledgement of their latest contribution in 4:18 plainly show that he did feel obligated to answer for his actions. Yet, his hands would not have been tied by any of the social obligations of patronage. Whether, as Sampley suggested, Paul adopted societas because it might have permitted him to promote a “strong sense of community,” minimal “social stratification,” and “quasi-brotherly” relationships between himself and the Philippians, and amongst the Philippians themselves, remains debatable.198 In our introductory review, we have pointed out that these could not have been anticipated benefits of societas. Trustworthy relationships were a prerequisite rather than a by-product of partnerships. This may explain why many societates, such as those recorded on the tituli picti of Monte Testaccio, were mainly established between “members of the same familia or businessmen who belonged to the same professional organization” (i.e., collegium).199 For it may have been difficult to find partners outside of one’s immediate familia or collegium which one could trust. Paul’s κοινωνία with the Philippians is thus (further) suggestive of the superior quality of his relationship with them, and them alone (cf. 4:15: εἰ µὴ ὑµεῖς µόνοι). As Sampley has rightly noted: “With most of his communities the requisite conditions of societas – harmony, good faith, and unity – were simply lacking.”200 And indeed, we never hear of a κοινωνία with the Galatians or with the Corinthians, for instance, which is perhaps another indication of the distrust characterising their relation (rather than the evidence of Paul’s inconsistency vis-à-vis financial support). Nor do we have any evidence of a societas with the Thessalonians, which is more surprising. This being said, and this is perhaps Sampley’s greatest insight, it does not necessarily follow that Paul did not value many of the intrinsic sociological features of societas, and enjoyed the (relative) social symmetry, egalitarianism, and mutual dependence, it required amongst κοινωνοί. In actual fact, societas would have accorded quite well with his innovative “structural model of social relations” within the ἐκκλησία, and would have supported his grand plan “to open the way to a new spirit of human cooperation through mutual service.”201

197

Cf. Szlechter, Le contrat, 281–83. Sampley, Partnership, 106–108. 199 Broekaert, “Joining Forces, 229. Cf. Dressel, “Monte Testaccio,” 137, 151, 158. 200 Sampley, Partnership, 106. 201 Judge, “Cultural Conformity,” 5–6. 198

Chapter 9

Conclusion This thesis set out to investigate one of Paul’s strategies to finance his missionary activities. Moving away from the question of his seemingly incoherent attitude vis-à-vis financial and/or material support, an issue that has polarised scholarly discussions for the past few decades, we proposed to concentrate our attention on the socio-economic dimension of Paul’s relationship with the Philippians. Gleaning from the insight of J. Fleury and J. P. Sampley, we explored the possibility that Paul had established a partnership with the Philippians for the proclamation and the advance of the εὐαγγέλιον, which was modelled on the Graeco-Roman socio-economic concept of partnership (κοινωνία/societas). Recognising the limitations of Fleury and Sampley’s studies, we initially proceeded to adduce primary evidence in support of their theses. This led us to conduct a thorough philological survey of hitherto neglected documentary sources, i.e., papyri and inscriptions, in order to illuminate the economic force of Paul’s language in two key passages of his letter to the Philippians (1:3–11, 4:15–20). Our focus on documentary evidence was justified by the fact that they better reflect the lingua franca of the day than literary sources, and that they have been largely ignored in previous scholarship. We discovered that Paul’s singular usage of technical economic terms such as τὸ δόµα, εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως, ἀπέχω, and πληρόω, not only resembled, but could also be explained by similar colloquial expressions found in a wide array of documents. More importantly, our survey of approximately one hundred inscriptions and three hundred papyri enabled us to establish that the term κοινωνία, and its related cognates κοινωνέω and κοινωνός, often denoted an economic partnership of some kind, which, in the first-century A.D., would have been assimilated with the Roman economic and legal concept of societas. In our second part, we endeavoured to apply these philological findings to a selective exegesis of Philippians and offered a socio-economic reading of sections 1:3–11 and 4:10–20. Through a detailed analysis of Paul’s thanksgiving period, we initially argued that one major motive and concern of the letter was his κοινωνία with the Philippians and the progress (προκοπή) of his mission. Turning our attention to 4:10–20, we rejected a metaphorical interpretation of the passage and proposed instead that Paul’s

Chapter 9

349

elaborate business discourse reflected a specific socio-economic reality, one which is best explained by the partnership he enjoyed with the Philippians. We suggested that their latest contribution represented their capital investment to the account of the κοινωνία, rather than an ad hoc gift which Paul feigned to accept. In a final chapter, we proceeded to illuminate the structure and outworkings of this partnership with the help of Roman legal sources. We concluded that Paul’s κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον with the Philippians is best described as a societas evangelii, that is, a partnership for the propagation of the gospel, whereby the Philippians provided the pecunia (funds), while Paul supplied the opera and ars (labour and skill). This modus operandi, we posited, enabled him to circumvent the negative effects of patronage, maximise his limited human and financial resources, and ensure the practical involvement of his communities in the work of his mission. Although this study has been very specific and focused in its scope, it is hoped that it has contributed in some fashion to the social history of early Christianity, and that it has sharpened our understanding of the socio-economic organisation of the first Christian communities. As opposed to offering a broad and general perspective on such a vast subject, we have conducted a case study of one particular strategy some of the early Christians, the apostle Paul and the Philippians in this instance, employed to fulfil their evangelistic mandate. While it is difficult to assess (given the paucity of our evidence) whether other early missionaries adopted a similar strategy, Paul’s letter to his κοινωνός Philemon, which is characterised by a similar cluster of economic termini technici in verses 15–20, suggests that his partnership with the Philippians may not have been as unique as it may first appear.1 A thorough study of Paul’s relationship with Philemon along similar lines of investigation as those pursued in this dissertation might shed further light on his adoption, and possible adaptation, of ancient economic conventions, and, more generally, on the economic life of early Christian communities. For now, we may conclude this study by re-emphasising how much more proactive and strategic we have found Paul to be vis-à-vis the funding and organisation of his mission. In his 1980 dissertation, R. F. Hock had suggested that only four means of support were available to the apostle to finance his missionary activities: 1) the charging of fees (in the manner of a sophist); 2) the acceptance of what classicists generally refer to as

1 Paul explicitly states that the Philippians were the only ἐκκλησία with whom he had a κοινωνία (4:15), which does not exclude the possibility that he had a similar kind of κοινωνία with other individuals as well.

350

Conclusion

(literary) patronage2; 3) begging (like a Cynic philosopher); 4) working as an artisan.3 Through a careful examination of documentary sources and ancient socio-cultural conventions, and through a detailed exegesis of Philippians 1:3–11 and 4:10–20, this study has demonstrated that Paul availed himself of a fifth alternative model: societas.

2 I.e., what Hock described as “entering the household … of a rich and powerful person.” Hock, Context, 53. 3 See Hock, Context, 52–59. Cf. idem, “Apostle,” 22–85; idem, “Simon”.

Appendix This appendix is divided into two sections A (inscriptions) and B (papyri), which are themselves divided into three sub-sections dealing respectively with the verb κοινωνέω, and the substantives κοινωνός and κοινωνία. Each sub-section is organised chronologically, the more precisely dated documents preceding those less precisely dated. Documents whose date cannot be determined at all, or which present a doubtful reading, are found at the very end of each sub-section. The Greek text is that of the edition referenced. All translations are the author’s unless otherwise indicated. All references have been included in the index. The easiest and quickest way to find a particular document is therefore to look up the corresponding page number in the index.

Appendix A

Κοινων- Cognates in Inscriptions A.1 Κοινωνέω SEG 51.532 Bronze disk honouring foreigners with citizenship Olympia

ca. 450 B.C.

Connotation: to participate in the politeia ll. 2–3: καὶ τᾶρ ἐπιϝοικίας τᾶρ ἐν Σπάρται κ’ ⟨ἐ⟩ν Εὐβοίαι κοινανν καὶ τὰν θε⟨α⟩ρίαν δέκεσαι̣ κτλ. Note: κοινανν is the dialectal form of the Attic κοινωεῖν, and is here synonymous with µετέχειν. Cf. Siewert, Olympia 1875–2000, 365. Trans.: and they may join the colonies of Sparta and Euboia and receive the embassy etc. Trans. (Siewert): “und sie sollen an der Epoikie (Gemeinschaft auswärtiger Eleer) in Sparta und jener auf Euboia teilhaben; und sie sollen die Festgesandtschaft aufnehmen.” Trans. (Minon): “Qu’ils soient associés à la colonie de Sparte et (à celle) d’Eubée et reçoivent la délégation de théares.” Biblio.: ed. pr. Siewert, Olympia 1875–2000, 359–70. Cf. SEG 50.460, 52.478; Taita, Dike 4 (2001) 39–85; Minon, Les inscriptions 1, 113–18, #16.

IDelphes 1.9 (= LSCG 77, Frag. C & D; Michel 995; GDI 2.2561)

Religious regulations of the Labyades

Delphi

Late V – early IV B.C.

Connotation: to share in/partake of something Frag. B, ll. 45–50: καὶ ℎȏ κα δέξωνται ἢ δαράταν ἢ ἀπελλαῖα πὰρ τὰ γράµµατα µὴ ἔστω Λαβυάδας µηδὲ κοινανείτω τῶν κοινῶν χρηµ̣ άτων µηδὲ τῶν θεµάτων̣. Note: κοινανείτω is the Ionic form of the Attic κοινωνείτω. Trans.: and he from whom they accepted either some darata (i.e., bread offering; cf. LSJ, s.v. δαράτα; Homolle, BCH 19 [1895]: 23) or some apellaia (i.e., sacrifice; cf. LSJ, s.v. ἀπελλαῖα), contrary to what is written, let him (no longer) be a Labyadan (i.e., member of the phratry of the Labyadans; cf. Homolle, BCH 19 [1895]: 25), and let him share neither of the common funds nor of the deposits.

354

Appendix

Biblio.: ed. pr. Homolle, BCH 19 (1895): 5–69 (plates XXI–XXIV). Cf. Dragoumis, BCH 19 (1895): 295–302 (minor corrections); Bousquet, BCH 90.1 (1966): 82–92 (entire revision). For a comprehensive bibliography see IDelphes 1.9, pp. 26–27.

IMylasa 3 (= CIG 2691e; ILouvreF 96c; LBW 379; SIG 167, ll. 32–51)

Decree concerning the conspiracy against Maussollos Mylasa (Caria)

355/4 B.C.

Connotation: to partner in a crime/to be an accomplice ll. 1–10: ἔτει πέµπτωι Ἀρταξέρξευς βασιλεύοντος, Μαυσσώλλου ἐξαιθραπεύον[τ]ος, Μανίτα τοῦ Πακτύω ἐπιβουλεύσαντος Μαυσσώλλωι τῶι Ἑκατόµνω ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι τοῦ ∆ιὸς τοῦ Λαµβραύνδου, θυσίης ἐνιαυσίης καὶ πανηγύριος ἐούσης, καὶ Μαυσσώλλου µὲν σωθέντος σὺν τῶι ∆ιί, Μανίτα δὲ αὐτοῦ [τ]ὴν δίκην λαβόντος ἐν χειρῶν νόµωι, ἔγνωσαν Μυλασε[ῖ]ς παρηνοµηµένου τοῦ ἱεροῦ καὶ Μαυσσώλλου τοῦ εὐεργέτεω ἔρευναν ποιήσασθαι, εἴ τις καὶ ἄλλος µετέ[σ]χεν ἢ ἐκοινώνησεν τῆς πράξιος κτλ. Trans.: on the fifth year of king Artaxerxes, when Maussollos was satrap, Manitas, the son of Paktyos, plotted against Maussollos, the son of Ekatomnos, in the temple of Zeus of Lambrandos, during the yearly festival and panegyric, and Maussollos was saved by Zeus while Manitas received his punishment in the tumult. The temple and his benefactor Maussollos being (thus) violated, the Mylasians resolved to conduct an enquiry (to find out) if someone else had participated or partnered in the crime. etc. Biblio.: Baumert, Koinonein, 289.

SIG 283 (= Michel 33)

Letter of Alexander the Great to the Chians Chios

334/3 or 332 B.C.

Connotation: to join in a political alliance ll. 10–13: τῶν δὲ προδόντων | τοῖς βαρβάροις τὴν πόλιν ὅσοι µὲν ἂν προεξέλθωσιν φεόγειν | αὀτοὺς ἐξ ἁπασῶν τῶν πόλεων τῶν τῆς εἰρήνης κοινωνουσῶν καὶ εἶναι ἀγωγίµους κατὰ τὸ δόγµα τὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων. Trans.: and of those who betrayed the city to the Barbarians, as many as fled from all the cities sharing in the peace, they are to be exiled and are liable to be seized according to the decree of the Greeks. Note: the date of this inscription remains debated (Heisserer: 334/3; com.opinio: 332). See Heisserer, Historia 22.2 (1973): 191–204; idem, Alexander, 79–95. Biblio.: ed. pr. Zolotas, Athena 5 (1893): 7–33. Cf. Haussoullier, RPh 17.2 (1893): 188– 90; Austin, Hellenistic World, 30–31, #6. For a larger bibliography see Heisserer, Historia 22.2 (1973): 191 (n. 1). On the wider context, see Badian, Ancient Society, 46–53; Bosworth, Conquest and Empire, 192–94.

355

A.1: Κοινωνέω in Inscriptions

IIlion 1 Honorific decree Ilion

306 B.C.

Connotation: to participate in sacrifices and festivals (cf. IIlion 2) ll. 24–26: (ἐπειδὴ) … ὑ[πὲρ] τῆς ἐλευθερίας καὶ αὐτονοµίας τῶν πόλεων τῶν κοινωνουσ[ῶν τοῦ] ἱεροῦ καὶ τῆς πανηγύρεως κτλ. Trans.: (it was decided) … [concerning] the freedom and independence of the cities participating in [the] sacrifices and the festival etc.

IG II² 11974 (= GVI 1706; CEG 2.577; IAttEpitSup RSE 58)

Epitaph

Salamis

ca. IV B.C.

Connotation: to share in something? l. 2: ζῶσά τε ἐκοινώνουν καὶ φθιµένη µετέχω κτλ. Trans.: while alive I took part (of life), perishing away I share (in death) etc. (?) Biblio.: ed. pr. Monceaux, BCH 6 (1882): 534, #3.

IKosSegre 149 (= GDI 3.3634, ll. 3–32; Sokolowski, LSCG 177; IKosPH 36; IKosHerzog 10)

Foundation for a (family) hero cult

ca. 300 B.C.

Kos Connotation: to participate in sacrifices

l. 7: το̣ ὶ̣ τ̣ῶ̣ν ἱερῶν κοινωνεῦντες κτλ. ll. 80–82: µὴ ἐξέσστω δὲ τοῖς κοινωνοῦσι τῶν ἱερῶγ [γε]ω̣ ργεῖν τὰ τεµένη κτλ. Trans.: (l. 7) those participating in the sacrifices … (ll. 80–82) let not those participating in the sacrifices cultivate the land of the sanctuary etc. Biblio.: ed. pr. Ross, IG 311, 45–54. Cf. Ferguson and Nock, HTR 37.2 (1944): 156.

IEph 1a. 4 (= Wood, Discoveries, App. 8, #1; SIG 364)

Law concerning debt settlements

Ephesus

ca. 297–296 B.C.

Connotation: to partner with (in the sense of forming a contractual agreement) ll. 24–28: ἂν δέ πως ἄλλως πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὁµολογήσωσιν ὑπὲρ τῆς διαιρέσε|ως ἀπογράψωνται π̣ [ρὸ]ς ̣ τοὺς ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ πολέµου, οὕτως αὐτοῖς εἶναι, ὡς ὁµο|λογήσωσι πρὸς ἀλλήλο̣ [υ]ς, ἀντίγραφα δὲ λαµβάνειν τὸγ γεωργὸν τῶν τ[οκισ]|τοῦ τοῦ αὐτῶι προσκοινωνοῦντος καὶ τὸν [τ]οκιστὴν τῶν τοῦ γεωργοῦ αὐτ[ῶι προσ]| κοινωνοῦντος τιµηµάτωγ καὶ δανείων κτλ.

καὶ ἂν τοῦ τοῦ

356

Appendix

Note: the verb προσκοινωνέω does not seem to be attested ever again in inscriptions (or in papyri). Trans.: and if they have agreed with each other some other way concerning the division and registration with those (overseeing) the common war, it is to be as they have agreed with each other, and the landowner (is) to receive copies of the valuations and loans from the creditor partnering with him (Bagnall and Derow: “the creditor joining with him in the agreement”), and (vice versa) the creditor (is to receive copies of the valuations and loans) from the landowner partnering with him etc. Note: the law was previously assigned to II–I B.C. (cf. Dareste, RD 1 [1877]: 161–78; Pringsheim, Law, 164), but later shown by Heberdey, FiE 2.4.17, to date from III B.C. (cf. FiE 2.4.1; SIG 363). Biblio.: Asheri, SCO 18 (1969): 42–44, 108–14; Bagnall and Derow, Hellenistic Period, 19–23; Holleaux, REG 29 (1916): 29–45 (esp. 44–45); Magie, Roman Rule I, 90–91; Finley, Land and Credit, 297 (n. 20).

Rigsby, Asylia 16 (= IKosHK 4, ll. 23–27; SEG 12.371, ll. 20–31; IArkadDubois, The 3)

Asylum decree of Thelphousa

Thelphousa (Arkadia)

ca. 242 B.C.

Connotation: to participate in sacrifices and festivals ll. 4–8: παρεκάλεα[ν] τᾶς τε θυσίας κοινανῆν … ἔδοξε τᾶι πόλι τῶ[ν] Θελφουσίων τᾶς τε θυσίας κοινανῆν καὶ τῶ ἀγῶνος κτλ. Note: κοινανῆν is the dialectal form of the Attic κοινωνεῖν (cf. IArkadDubois, The 3, p. 230). Trans.: (since) they have invited (the Thelphousians) to participate in the sacrifices … it pleased the city of the Thelphousians to participate in the sacrifices and the festival etc.

Rigsby, Asylia 48 (= IKosHK 12; SEG 12.379; ISikilDial 117)

Asylum decree of Camarina

Kos

ca. 242 B.C.

Connotation: to participate in festivals and contests (cf. Rigsby, Asylia 49) l. 16: καὶ ἀξιῶντι δεῖν κοινωνεῖν τὰν ἁµὰµ πόλιν κτλ. Note: ἀξιῶντι stands for the Attic form ἀξιοῦσι (cf. ISikilDial 117, p. 123). Trans.: and (since) they deem necessary that our city participate (in musical and athletic festivals; cf. τοὺς ἀγῶνας οὓς τίθεντι µουσικὸν καὶ γυµνικὸν, ll. 14–15) etc.

357

A.1: Κοινωνέω in Inscriptions

IMagnMai 33 (= IGonnoi 2.111; Rigsby, Asylia 83)

Decree of acceptance of Leukophryena of Magnesia ca. 206–203 B.C.

Magnesia on the Maeander Connotation: to participate in sacrifices

ll. 22–24: ἀποστέλλειν δὲ καὶ θεωροὺς καθ’ ἑκάστην σύνοδον τοὺς κοινωνήσοντας τῆς θυσίας κτλ. Trans.: (it pleased the city) to send theoroi (i.e., envoys) to each assembly to participate in the sacrifices etc.

SEG 40.394 (= GDI 1.1614; SIG 531; SEG 13.273, ll. 1–6)

Citizenship decree (now lost)

Dyme (Achaia)

III B.C. ?

Connotation: to participate in the politeia ll. 2–3: τὸν θέλοντα κοινωνεῖν τᾶς πολι|[τείας ἄνδρ?]α ἐλεύθερον καὶ ἐξ ἐλευθ̣έρων κτλ. ll. 17–18: [εἰ δὲ] χήρα ἐλευ[θέρα καὶ ἐξ] ἐλευθέ|[ρων θελήσει κοι]νωνεῖ[ν τᾶς πολιτείας] κτλ. ll. 32–33: [καὶ κοινω]νεόντω θεοκολιᾶν, ἇν ἁ πόλις καθιστᾶι ἐν̣ | [τᾶι φυλᾶι τᾶι] ἑ̣αυτῶν, καὶ ἀρχείων τῶν τε εἰς τὸ Κοινόν | κτλ. Note: the expression κοινωνεῖν τᾶς πολιτείας is used here instead of the more common formula µετέχειν τῆς πολιτείας (see Bordes, Politeia, 97–103). The expression µετέχειν τῶν κοινῶν (i.e., to take part in the affairs of the city) is also encountered in a similar sense (e.g., SEG 38.521, ll. 22–24). Cf. P. Cabanes, Ktema 23 (1998) 441; idem, CRAI 135.1 (1991): 210. Trans.: (ll. 2–3) (let) he who wants to participate in the politeia be free and of free parents etc. (ll. 17–18) [and if] a free widow (born) of free parents [wishes?] to participate [in the politeia?] etc. (ll. 32–33) [and] let them participate in the religious magistracies, which the city has established according to [each tribe], and in the civic magistracies concerning the confederation etc. Biblio.: ed. pr. Martha, BCH 2 (1878): 94–96. Cf. Bingen, BCH 78 (1954): 86–87; Rizakis, Tyche 5 (1990): 109–34; Dubois, BE (1991): 485–86, #303; Rizakis, Achaïe III, 44–49, #3.

IMagnMai 44 (= Rigsby, Asylia 94)

Decree of acceptance of Korkyra Magnesia on the Maeander Connotation: to participate in sacrifices ll. 18–19: καὶ ἀποστέλλειν θιαρούς … τοὺς κοινωνησοῦντας τᾶς τε θυσίας κτλ.

ca. III B.C.

358

Appendix

Note: the use of µετέχω in the preceding line (µετέχειν τᾶς τε θυσίας καὶ τοῦ ἀγῶνος, ll. 17–18) Trans.: (since it pleased the city) … and to send thiaroi to participate in the sacrifices etc.

IIlion 2 Honorific decree for the gymnasiarchs Ilion

Late III B.C.

Connotation: to participate in sacrifices and festivals (cf. IIlion 1) ll. 7–9 (cf. ll. 32, 42, 48): καὶ τῶµ πόλεων τῶν κοινωνουσῶν τῆς τε θυσίας καὶ τοῦ ἀγῶνος καὶ τῆς πανηγύρεως κτλ. Trans.: and of the city participating in the sacrifices, the contest, and the panegyric etc.

SEG 11.1107 (= IPArk 18)

Honorary decree of the city of Elatea Stymphalos (Arkadia)

ca.189 B.C.

Connotation: to participate in sacrifices l. 5: καὶ ἱερῶν καὶ θυσιᾶν ἐκοινώνησαν κτλ. Note: the inscription is written in the Phocidian dialect, although it preserves some Doric forms, such as the feminine genitive plural -ᾶν instead of -ῶν. See Mitsos, REG 59/60 (1946): 159. Trans.: and they participated in the consecrated offerings and sacrifices etc. Biblio.: ed. pr. Mitsos, REG 59/60 (1946): 150–74.

IG IX 1.32 (= SIG 647; Michel 24)

Sympoliteia treaty

Stiris (Phokis)

Early II B.C.

Connotation: to participate in sacrifices ll. 51–54: κοινωνεόντω δὲ οἱ Μεδε|[ώ]νιοι τᾶν θυσιᾶν τᾶν ἐν Στί|[ρι] πασᾶν, καὶ τοὶ Στίριοι τᾶν ἐν Με|δεῶνι πασᾶν κτλ. Trans.: let the Medeonians participate in all the sacrifices in Stiris, and the Stirians in all those of the Medeon etc. Biblio.: ed. pr. Beaudouin, BCH 5 (1881): 42–54.

A.1: Κοινωνέω in Inscriptions

359

SEG 29.1130 bis Treaty between Temnos and Klazomenai Klazomenai?

200–150 B.C.

Connotation: to partner in a law suit Frag. B, ll. 15–17: αἱ δὲ δ̣ [ίκ]α[ι τοῖς δι]καζοµένοις γ[ινέσθ]ωσαν τῶ̣ι ὕ̣σ|τερον ἐνιαυτῶι. Τὸν δὲ ἐπ̣ [ήκοον περὶ τούτων µόνον δικάζειν, µήτε ἄλλης; cf. Piejko, MDAI(I) 36 [1986]: 97] κοινωνεῖ δίκης µηδεµιᾶς κτλ. Frag. B, ll. 37–40: Ο[ὓ]ς οὐ δεῖ δικάζειν … µηδὲ κοινωνοὺ̣[ς τῆ]ς [δί]κ̣ η ς κτλ. Trans.: (ll. 15–17) and let the trials for those prosecuting take place in the following year. Αnd the [delegate is to adjudicate only concerning these matters?], [nor?] does he participate in any [other?] lawsuit etc. (ll. 37–40) Regarding those who ought not to judge … nor (become) associates in [the] lawsuit etc. Biblio.: ed. pr. Herrmann, MDAI(I) 29 (1979): 249–71 (II. B). Cf. SEG 36.1040; Piejko, MDAI(I) 36 (1986): 95–97; Horsley, NewDocs 4, 134, #31.

SEG 53.1373 Honorary decree Ilion

ca. 200–150 B.C.

Connotation: to participate in festivals ll. 24–27: διὸ καὶ καλῶς ἔχ[ο]ν ἐστὶν τὸν [δῆµ]ον τὸν Λαµψακηνῶν ἐπαινεθῆν[αι ὑ]πὸ τῶν πόλε[ῶν τ]ῶγ κοινωνουσῶ[ν] τῆς πανηγύρεως κτλ. Trans.: therefore it is well for the [people] of Lampsakos to be praised by the cities which participate in the panegyrics etc. Biblio.: ed. pr. Özhan and Tombul, EA 36 (2003): 109–14.

SEG 3.710 (= IG XII Sup 116)

Decree of the young Mythilenians Mytilene (Lesbos)

ca. 129 B.C.

Connotation: to join in a (military) alliance ll. 9–12: δὲ καὶ διὰ τὴν οὖσαν αὐτῶι ἀπὸ τῆς [ἀρ]‖χ̣ῆ ς πρὸς Ῥωµαίους εὔνοιάν τε καὶ φιλίαν καὶ διὰ τὴν ὑ|πάρχουσαν πρὸς αὐτοὺς συµµαχίαν κοινωνοῦντος τοῦ συνεστῶτος αὐτοῖς ἐν τῆι Ἀσίᾳ πολέµου κτλ. Trans.: and also on account of his enduring goodwill and friendship towards the Romans from the beginning, and on account of his alliance with them, when he joined them in the Asian war etc. Biblio.: ed. pr. Evangelidis, AD 4 (1920): 99–104, #1. Cf. Labarre, Lesbos 65.

360

Appendix

IPergamon 1.158 (= Welles 51, pp. 205–209)

Letter of an Attalid king to military cleruchs Pergamum

II B.C.

Connotation: sense unclear (text very fragmented) ll. 12–14: [το]ὺς τοιοὺτους οὐ βουληθέντας ἐν [τῆι πόλει τῶν στέγνων?; cf. Welles]εν τοῖς πλείοσι κοινωνεῖν, τῶν δε ἄλ[λων ἐστεγνοποιηµέν]οις κτλ. Trans.: those who did not wish in […?] to share/participate (?) with the larger lot, and of the others […?] etc.

IG XII 9.899 Honorary decree Chalkis (Euboia)

II–I B.C.

Connotation: sense and context unclear Frag. B, ll. 1–2: [ – ca. 18 – ἀποδο/ἀρ]χ̣ ῆς ἐκοινώνησεν τιµηθεὶς ἐν τοῖς προγεγραµ[µένοις ὑπὸ τῶν ε]ὐεργετῶν Ῥωµαίων κτλ. Trans.: he shared (?) [in the rule/favour?], being honored in the aforementioned matters by the [state?] of the Roman benefactors etc. Biblio.: Robert, CRAI 113.1 (1969): 58 (n. 1).

IGLSyr 1.51 (= SEG 12.554; Waldmann, Kultreformen, 33–42, Sz 42–47)

Decree of king Antiochos I of Kommagene

Selik (Kommagene)

ca 64–38 B.C.

Connotation: to share in something ll. 42–47: ∆αιµο[νί]ωι δὲ γνώµηι ταύτην ἀναγραφὴν εὐσεβεία[ς] πρόφητιν ἐποιη|[σά]µη[ν], ἐφ’ ἧς ἱ[ε]ρὰ γράµµατα δι’ ὀλί[γ]ης [Fraser: ὀλί(γ)ης] φωνῆς θεσπίζει µέγαν θε[ῶν] νοῦν πολίταις καὶ ξένοις, ὁµοίως βασιλε[ῦ]σιν, δυνάσταις, [ἐλε]υθέροις, δούλοις, πᾶσιν ὅσοι φύσεως κοινωνοῦντες ἀνθρω[πίν]ης κτλ. Note: similar or identical inscriptions have been discovered at the shrines of Nemrud Dağ (Np 7–13), Arsameia-on-the-Nymphaios (A 189–195), and Ancoz (cf. SEG 53.1763, Sz 42–47). For the various fragments see Waldmann, Kultreformen, 70, 88. Trans.: through a divine purpose I made this inscription to declare (my) piety, by which the sacred letters proclaim through a small voice the great mind of the god[s] to the citizens and foreigners, similarly, to kings, rulers, free, slaves, to as many as share in human nature etc. Trans. (Waldmann, A 189–195): “Durch göttlichen Willen habe ich diese Inschrift zur Künderin meiner Frömmigkeit gemacht, auf der heilige Buchstaben in geringer Sprache den grossen Willen der Götter Bürgern und Fremden verkünden, in gleicher Weise Königen, Herrschern, Freien und Sklaven, allen, die Anteil an der menschlichen Natur haben.”

361

A.1: Κοινωνέω in Inscriptions

Biblio.: ed. pr. Humann and Puchstein, Reisen in Kleinasien, 368–72. Cf. Deissmann, BS, 368 (n. 2); Fraser, ABSA 47 (1952): 96–99 (revision); Robert, BE (1954): 175, #242; Wagner and Petzl, “Relief- und Inschriftfragmente,” in Neue Forschungen (eds. Schwertheim et al.), 85–96 (Sz 42–47).

Waldmann, Kultreformen, 89, A 233–234 Decree of king Antiochos I of Kommagene Arsameia-on-the-Nymphaios (Kommagene)

ca 64–38 B.C.

Connotation: to partake of something ll. 233–234: vac. ∆ιός τε Ὠροµάσδου κεραυνοῖς γένος ἐκείνου πάν ὅπερ κοινωνεῖ κακοῦ αἵµατος vac. κτλ. Trans. (Waldmann): “Durch den Zorn der Hera soll er eine Unrecht hassende Strafe, die eine unerbittliche Dienerin der himmlischen Gerechtigkeit ist, als sehr bittere Rächerin der unfrommen Gesinnung finden; durch die Blitze des Zeus Oromasdes soll sein Geschlecht, da es ja Anteil an seinem schlechten Blut hat” (emphasis added). Trans. (Danker): “and through the wrath of Hera let him discover how heavenly justice imposes the penalty that brooks no unrighteousness and undeterred by flattery renders its service as bitterest avenger of impious intention; and, struck by the lightning bolts of Zeus Oromasdes, let all his relations, who share his evil blood” (emphasis added). Biblio.: Danker, Benefactor, 247–55, #42.

IIlion 12 Honorific decree I B.C.

Ilion Connotation: to participate in sacrifices and festivals (cf. IIlion 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)

ll. 1–3: [Ἰ]λιεῖς καὶ αἱ πόλεις αἱ κοινωνοῦσαι τῆς θυσίας καὶ τοῦ ἀγῶνος καὶ τῆς πανηγύρεως κτλ. Trans.: the Ilians and the cities participating in the sacrifices, the contest, and the panegyric etc.

IDelphes 4.152 (= FD 3.4.302)

Letter of Hadrian to the Delphians Delphi

A.D. 125

Connotation: to participate in the Amphictyony ll. 5–7: Κατὰ τάδε ἔδοξέ µοι κ[ο]ινωνεῖν ὑ[µᾶς τῆ]ς Ἀµφικτυονείας καὶ τὸν ἀγῶν[α δι]α̣ τίθεσθ̣[αι τ]ῶν Πυθίων κτλ. Trans.: concerning these matters, I resolved that you (may) participate in the Amphictyony and organise the Pythian games etc. Biblio.: see the large bibliography provided in IDelphes 4.152.

362

Appendix

SEG 56.1359 (= AE 2006 [2009]: 545–57, #1403)

Letter of Hadrian to the guild of Dionysiac artists A.D. 133/134

Alexandria Troas Connotation: to participate in the same (professional) activity

ll. 36–37: ἀλλ᾿ οἱ µὲν ἀθληταὶ διδότωσαν τὰς τεταγµένας ἑκατοστάς· ἔχουσι γάρ τι οἰκεῖον πρὸς τοὺς ξυστάρχας καὶ τοῦ ἐπιτηδεύµατος κοινωνοῦντες καὶ ὑπ’ αὐτοῖς ἀγωνιζόµενοι. Trans.: but let the athletes pay the prescribed hundredths (i.e., 1% tax), for they are closely related to the Xystarches and they share in the (same) activities and compete under them. Note: ξυστάρχαι were “athletic dignitaries, appointed by the emperors to superintend the discipline of athletes in a particular contest or region.” Jones, ZPE 161 (2007): 148. Cf. Petzl and Schwertheim, Hadrian und dionysischen Künstler, 49. Biblio.: ed. pr. Petzl and Schwertheim, Hadrian. Cf. Jones, ZPE 161 (2007): 145–56; Slater, JRA 21 (2008): 610–20.

IG II² 1110 (= SIG 873)

Letter of Emperor Commodus to the Eupolmidae Athens

ca. A.D. 180–192

Connotation: to participate in something (religious mysteries?) Frag. B.1, ll. 1–5: – – α καὶ [µυστηρίω]ν κεκοινωνηκὼς [ὥ]στε ἐξ ἐκείνου δίκαιος ἂν εἴην ὁµολογῶν καὶ τὸ Εὐµολπίδης εἶναι. Trans.: and having participated [in the mysteries?], so that it was right afterwards that I should agree also to be a Eumolpides (i.e., a member of a priestly tribe; cf. OLD, s.v. Eupolmidae). Biblio.: Oliver, Greek Constitutions, 417–19, #206.

SGO 1 06/02/32 (= IGRR 4.507; TextMin 41.20)

Funerary epigram

Pergamum

A.D. I–II

Connotation: to share/have something in common ll. 18–20: [ἔ]ν[θα] κ[α]ὶ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ κείσο[µαι]|αἴ κε θά[νω], ὡς [εὐνῆ]ς µο[ύνῃ]|σοι ἐκοινώνησα κα[τ’] α[ἶσα]ν ‖ ὧδε δὲ κα ξυνὴν{νην} γαῖαν ἐφε[σ]|σάµενος. Trans.: [there] I will myself lie when I die, as I shared [my bed] with you alone, according to [destiny], so (will this be) our common ground when I am laid to rest. Biblio.: Wilhelm, BCH 29 (1905): 414–15; MM, s.v. κοινωνέω, 350; Samama, Les médecins, 310–11, #188.

363

A.1: Κοινωνέω in Inscriptions

ISmyrna 2.712 (= LBW 4; IBM 4.1021; SIG 1262; IGRR 4.1427)

Decree concerning a ferry service

Smyrna

ca. A.D. I–II

Connotation: to participate in a service (in the sense of enjoying the use of it) ll. 2–3: τ̣ οὺς πολλοὺς κωλ̣ ύ̣ουσι κ̣ [οι]ν̣ ωνεῖν τῆς πορθµείας κτλ. Trans.: they hinder many to take part in the ferry service etc. Biblio.: Abbott and Johnson, Municipal Administration, 387, #70; Dittmann-Schöne, Berufsvereine, 161.

IGLSyr 2.661 Funerary monument Kouaro (Antioch, Syria)

A.D. 223

Connotation: to share something (i.e., a tomb)? ll. 7–12: (ἀφιέρωτε + names ) … µήτε ὑποθέσθε µήτε πωλῆ[σ] µήτε κοινῶσε ἄ[λ]λον· ἐὰν δ̣ ὲ ἄλλον τινὰ κοινώνιν δώσι τῷ ἱερωτάτῳ ταµίῳ ✳͵β. Note: one must of course understand the infinitives ὑποθέσθαι, πωλῆσαι, and κοινῶσαι. The ed. pr. suggests reading κοινωνῇ in place of κοινώνιν. The accusatives ἄλλον and τινὰ remain unexplained, unless the infinitive κοινωνεῖν was intended, which would be peculiar after ἐὰν. Trans.: (so and so consecrated this tomb) … neither to be mortgaged/no one is to be laid there (?), nor to sell, nor let another share (the tomb). If someone else shares (in it) (?), he/she shall pay to the treasury 2,000 drachmas.

SEG 40.1380 bis Mosaic inscription in a basilica Houeidjit Halaoua (Osroene, Syria)

A.D. 471

Connotation: to partner in a (building) enterprise Text: Ἡ ἐλευθέρα | Κοσµία καὶ | ὁ τιµ(ιώτατος) Κοσµᾶς | ἐκοινώνη‖σαν ἐν τῷ | ἔργῳ τούτῳ Trans.: the spouse Kosmia (ἐλευθέρα, i.e., free to be married; cf. Donceel-Voûte) and the most honourable Kosmas jointly participated in this work. Trans. (Donceel-Voûte): “L’épouse Kosmia et le très honorable Kosmas se sont cotisés pour ce travail.” Biblio.: ed. pr. Donceel-Voûte, Les pavements, 146–47.

364

Appendix

A.1.1 Κοινωνέω – Date Undetermined TAM 3.35 Epitaph? Termessos, Pisidia

Date?

Connotation: sense and context unclear Frag. A.1., l. 7: κοινωνεῖν δ’ ἥδιο̣ ν ἀπερ̣{ερ}γασίας κτλ. Trans.: and to share in the workmanship is pleasant (?)

IHierapJ 336 (= CIG 3916; SEG 46.1669)

Epitaph of a gladiator

Hierapolis

Date?

Connotation: to share something (i.e., a tomb)? ll. 6–12: ἕτ(ερον) οὐκ [ἐξ]ὸν (κ)ηδεῦσα(ι), [ἢ ὁ κ]ηδεύσα|ς ἀποτείσει τῇ Ἱεραπολειτῶ[ν]| πόλει (δηνάρια) (δισχίλια) (πεντακόσια) (CIG 3916: ✳ β[φ]). οὐδ(ὲ) µετα[κ]ει(ν)ήσει τις ταύτην| τὴν σορόν, οὐδὲ πωλήσε(ι) ΠΕ vac | οὐδὲ ὑποθήσεται, οὐ[δ]ὲ κοινωνείσει πρός τινα, οὐ‖δὲ συνµερίσεται τ(ὸν) περίβολον κτλ. Trans.: it is not permitted to bury someone else (in this sarcophagus), or he who does so shall pay to the city of the Hierapolitans 2,500 obols; nor shall anyone move this sarcophagus, sell (it), … (?), be buried (in it), share (it) with someone, allot the enclosure, etc. Biblio.: Gladiateurs 126; Ritti and Yilmaz, MAL 10 (1998): 528–30, #22; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ, 7; Baumert, Koinonein, 136–37.

A.1.2 Κοινωνέω – Doubtful Reading SEG 22.274 Decree of Themistokles Troizen

ca. 330–322 B.C.

Connotation: to participate in a military expedition? ll. 17–18: κ̣ α̣ ὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶµ βουλοµένω[ν] κ̣ οινω[νήσειν τοῦ κινδύνο]υ κτλ. Note: the justification for this restoration may be found in Isocrates (Or. 6.43: κοινωνήσαντες δὲ τῶν κινδύνων ἡµῖν). Cf. Jameson, Hesperia 29.2 (1960): 215. Trans.: and all the others wishing to participate in the [military expedition?] (literally to share the dangers) etc. Biblio.: ed. pr. Jameson, Hesperia 29.2 (1960): 198–223. Cf. Jameson, Hesperia 31.3 (1962): 310–15; Meritt, Hesperia 31.4 (1962): 413.

A.1: Κοινωνέω in Inscriptions

365

Rigsby, Asylia 49 (= SEG 12.380; ISikilDial 160; IKosHK 13)

Asylum decree of Gela

Kos

ca. 242 B.C.

Connotation: to participate in festivals? l. 15: [ἀξιῶντι δεῖν κοινων]εῖν τὰν ἁµὰµ πόλιν κτλ. Note: the text of this inscription being an almost exact copy of Rigsby, Asylia 48, this restoration is very likely. Trans.: [and they deem it necessary] that our city [participate] (in musical and athletic festivals; cf. [τοὺς] ἀγῶνας οὓς τίθεντι [µουσικὸν καὶ γυµνικὸν], ll. 13–14) etc.

SEG 37.673 Katadesmos (i.e., defixio) tablet (found in a tomb) Olbia (Borysthenes)

ca. III B.C.

Connotation: to form a partnership? (“au sens de ‘faire société’”; Bravo, Poikilia, 190) ll. 8–9 (Bravo): ἐπ᾽ ὅ τινα µαρτυρίην ο̣ [ὗ]τοι νώησαν Ed. pr. (non vidi): νησαν; Dubois: ‘νώησαν; Jordan: [ἀγ]νωησάν[των] Note: Bravo understood the actual reading ΟΥΤΟΙΝΩΗΣΑΝ to be a contraction of οὗτοι and έκοινώνησαν due to “deux lapsus ‘par anticipation’.” He thus suggested the following translation (based on Aristotle, Pol. 1280a, ll. 26–27): “(Il est certain que nous savons) quelle est la chose pour faire laquelle ils vont se présenter, quel est le témoignage en vue duquel ceux-ci ont fait société.” Bravo, Poikilia, 189–90. Trans.: (it is certain that we know) the witness for which they associated (?) Biblio.: SEG 47.1191; Bravo, “Une tablette magique,” in Poikilia, 185–218; Dubois, Inscriptions Olbia, 176–78, #109; Jordan, Mnemosyne 50.2 (1997): 212–19; Slings, Mnemosyne 51.1 (1998): 84–85.

Segre, Hellenica 5 (1948): 102–28 Decree on the Nikephoria Kos

182 B.C.

Connotation: participation in sacrifices? (cf. Rigsby, Asylia 176) ll. 11–12: καὶ πέµψ̣ [αντες θεωροὺς ἐκοινων]ήσατε τῶν ἱερῶν κτλ. Note: the ed. pr. drew a parallel with IMagnMai 44 (l. 18) and IMagnMai 33 (l. 23) for this restoration. Cf. Segre, Hellenica 5 (1948): 108. Trans.: and having sent [theoroi, i.e., envoys, you participated?] in the sacrifices etc. Biblio.: for lower fragments see Herzog, Hermes 65.4 (1930) 455–71; Welles 49 & 50, pp. 197–202. Cf. Robert, BCH 54 (1930): 332–46.

366

Appendix

Hagel and Tomaschitz, Repertorium, Ada 3a, pp. 12–13 (= IKilikiaBM 1.34; cf. SEG 20.94, ll. 1–16)

Funerary monument

ca. mid-A.D. I

Adanda (Cilicia) Connotation: N/A (unlikely reference to κοινωνέω)

ll. 17–18: Ἐὰν δὲ τις ἀποστή[σει] ἕτερος καὶ αὐτὸς ἀποτείσει τὰ π[ρογε]γραµµένα οἱ κοινο[νοῦντες τ]ὸ µνῆµα IKilikiaBM 1.34 (Bean and Mitford are uncertain of their restoration): ἐὰν δέ τις ἀποστή̣[κ]ῃ ἕτε[ρ]ος καὶ αὐτὸς ἀποτείσει τὰ προ[γε]γραµµένα. οὐ κοινὸ[ν τ]ὸ µνῆµα. Note: Hagel and Tomaschitz’ reading, which follows that of the ed. pr., is difficult grammatically (with what is οἱ κοινονοῦντες supposed to accord?), and differs significantly from that of Bean and Mitford (Hagel and Tomaschitz fit eight letters in the space where Bean and Mitford envisage only two letters). Trans.: (following IKilikiaBM 1.34): If anyone else withdraws (from the terms of the agreement?), he/she shall repay the aforementioned (penalties; cf. ll. 13–15). The tomb is not public. Note: the date is suggested by the use of δραχµαί, i.e., ante Vespasian (cf. IKilikiaBM 2, p. 178). Biblio.: ed. pr. Paribeni and Romanelli, MonAL 23 (1914): 159–66, #113. Cf. Bean and Mitford, AnSt 12 (1962): 211, #35 (ll. 1–16).

SEG 39.1222 Epitaph of Aur. Sambathios Ephesus

A.D. III

Connotation: sense unclear (text very fragmented) ll. 1–6: (left) [Τοῦτο τὸ ἡµιµόριον ἐστι]ν [ – – ].ίου [ – ] Ἐφε[σίου Ἰουδ]έ̣ου · [ – ό]ριον (right) Τοῦτο τ[ὸ ἡµι]µόριον ἐ[στιν] Αὐρ. Σαµ[βαθίου] Ἰούδα Ἐφ[εσίου] Ἰουδέου ἐκοι[νωνη – ] Note: the final l. 6 is very fragmentary: [ – ό]ριον ἐκοι[νωνη – ]. The ed. pr. suggested that it makes reference to a third tomb added to the existing two and proposed the restoration: “Τούτοις τριµό]ριον ἐκοι[νωνήθη mit folgendem Genetiv des Namens jener dritten Person.” Ameling (IJO 2.34) instead restored ll. 5–6 (right) as follows: Ἰουδέου [καὶ γυ]νεκὸς [αὐτοῦ – ]. Ameling’s restoration seems more likely. Based on the facsimile of the inscription provided by the ed. pr., we do not see how τούτοις could fit on the left before τριµόριον and a name on the right after ἐκοινωνήθη. Trans. (based on Ameling’s restoration): (left) [this half of the tomb belongs to?] … ios (?), [son of?], of Ephesus (?) [and a Jew?] … rion (?). (right) This [half?] of the tomb [belongs?] to Aur. Sambathios (?), son of Ioudas, of Ephesus (and) a Jew, and [his wife?] Trans. (Ameling): “Dieses Grabmal gehört ...ios, S. d. ..., Ephesier, Jude .... – Dieses Grabmal gehört Aur. Sambathios, S. d. Iudas, Ephesier, Jude, und seiner Frau...” Biblio.: ed. pr. Knibbe, Engelmann and Iplikçioğlu, JÖAI 59 (1989): 219–20, #54. Cf. SEG 34.1146; SEG 54.1192; IJO 2.34; AE 1990 (1993): 276, #930; Williams, ZPE 116 (1997): 260, #26. See also Horsley, NovT 34.2 (1992): 126–27 (on the apparent Jewishness of the name Sambathios).

A.2: Κοινωνός in Inscriptions

367

SEG 40.1380 ter Mosaic inscriptions found in basilica Houeidjit Halaoua (Osroene, Syria)

A.D. 471

Connotation: to partner in a construction project? (cf. SEG 40.1380 bis) ll. 4–7: [ – εἰς µν]ηµόσυνον αἰώνι‖ο[ν – – καὶ τ]ῶν ἐνώπιον | του Θ[εο]ῦ καὶ [πάντων τῶν κοινωνησάντ]ων τῷ ἔργῳ | [ – – Ἀµή]ν Trans.: [for] everlasting remembrance … (of so and so?) and of [all who participated?] in the work before God … [Amen?] Biblio.: Donceel-Voûte, Les pavements, 148.

A.2 Κοινωνός IG V 2.6 (= Michel 585; IPArk 3; IArkadDubois, IG 6)

Arkadian regulation on building contracts Tegea

ca. 350 B.C.

Connotation: associate entrepreneur ll. 21–22: µὴ ἐξέστω δὲ µηδὲ κοινᾶνας γενέσθαι | πλέον ἢ δύο ἐπὶ µηδεν̣ὶ τῶν ἔργων κτλ. Note: the Arkadian form κοινᾶνας corresponds to the Attic nominative form κοινωνός. Trans.: it is not permited that there be more than two partners in any enterprise etc. Biblio.: Buck, Dialects, 201–204, #19; Egea, Documenta, 60–61, #47; Thür, Studi Biscardi 5 (1984): 471–514.

SEG 19.181 Horos stone Attica

ca. 350 B.C.

Connotation: associate entrepreneur (cf. SEG 19.182) ll. 6–8: ΗΗ δραχµ|[ὰς] (Klaffenbach: δραχµ[ῶν]) τοῖς κοινωνοῖς τοῦ | [Ἀχα]ρνικοῦ ὀχετοῦ κτλ. Trans.: 700 drachmas (paid) by the associates of the aqueduct of Acharnae etc. Biblio.: ed. pr. Sophia and Irene, Ἀρχαιολογικὰ, 28–37. Cf. Vanderpool, AJA 65 (1961): 299; Klaffenbach, MDAI (A) 76 (1961): 121–26; Robert, BE (1962): 150, #126; idem, BE (1964): 158–59, #160–161; Koerner, APF 22/23 (1974): 170–72; Konsolaki, AD 34 (1979): B1, 91–92; Theodoridis, ΖΡΕ 60 (1985): 51–52; Catling, AR 34 (1987–88): 10.

368

Appendix

IG XII 9.191 Contract for public works Euboia

ca. 320–315 B.C.

Connotation: associate entrepreneur l. 31: Χ[α]ιρεφάνην καὶ τοὺς κοινω[ν]ούς Trans.: Chairephane and (his) associates Biblio.: Robert, BE (1948): 191, #194; idem, BE (1958): 189–90, #50; idem, BE (1964): 158–59, #160; Knoepfler, “Le contrat d’Érétrie,” in Irrigation (ed. Briant), 41–79. On the date of this inscription see Holleaux, REG 10 (1897): 189 (n. 1); Knoepfler, “Le contrat d’Érétrie,” in Irrigation, 62–65

IG II² 2502 (= SEG 21.643)

Horos stone?

Attica

ca. IV B.C.

Connotation: associate entrepreneur ll. 5–7: [δ]ραχµῶν ὥστ’ εἶ[ναι τὴν ἐνναίαν τοῦ χωρίου τῶν κοι]νωνῶν τοῦ Ἀχ[αρνικοῦ ὀχετοῦ καὶ ἐξεῖναι αὐτοῖς] τὸν ὀχετόν κτλ. Note: the restoration is that of Klaffenbach (with which Robert later concurred). Trans.: [number?] drachmas (paid) so that [the spring of the field may belong to?] the associates of the aqueduct of Acharnae (?) [and they may be allowed (to draw)?] the aqueduct etc. Biblio.: Klaffenbach, MDAI (A) 76 (1961): 121–26; Robert, BE (1964): 158, #160.

SEG 29.1130 bis Treaty between Temnos and Klazomenai Klazomenai?

200–150 B.C.

Connotation: partner in a law suit Frag. B, ll. 37–40: Ο[ὓ]ς οὐ δεῖ δικάζειν … µηδὲ κοινωνοὺ̣[ς τῆ]ς [δί]κ̣ η ς κτλ. Trans.: regarding those who ought not to judge … nor (become) associates in [the] lawsuit etc. Biblio.: ed. pr. Herrmann, MDAI(I) 29 (1979): 249–71 (II. B). Cf. SEG 36.1040; Piejko, MDAI(I) 36 (1986): 95–97; Horsley, NewDocs 4, 134, #31.

369

A.2: Κοινωνός in Inscriptions

IKlaros 1 (pp. 11–62) Honorary decree for Polemaios Klaros

ca. 130–110 B.C.

Connotation: associate in a benefactor’s civic conduct (including partaking of his generosity) Col. 1, ll. 4–16: τὸ δὲ σῶµα τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν γυµνασιῶν ἐθισµοῖς ἐναθλήσας ἐστεφανώθη µὲν ἱεροὺς ἀγῶνας, εἰσάγων δὲ τούτους εἰς τὴν πατρίδα καὶ τὰς ἐπιβαλλούσας τοῖς θεοῖς παριστάνων θυσίας, πάντας ὁµοίως σπεύδων ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς κοινωνοὺς ποιήσασθαι τῆς τοῦ βίου προαιρέσεως γλυκισµοὺς ἐπιτελέσας µετάδοσιν ἐποιήσατο τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ βίου χορηγίας κτλ. Trans.: and having trained his body by regular physical exercise he was crowned at sacred contests, and bringing these (crowns) to his homeland and presenting the due sacrifices to the gods, and being eager, from the beginning, to make all equally (i.e., the whole city) his associates in the (civic) conduct of his life, he offered gifts of sweet wine (and) distributed supplies (e.g., grain, oil, money) from his (good) fortune. Note: see Robert’s commentary for the specific sense of the terms and expressions πάντας ὁµοίως, προαίρεσις, ἀπὸ τοῦ βίου χορηγίας, in this context. Biblio.: Gauthier, BE (1990): 440, #17. On the diplomatic role Polemaios played vis-àvis the Romans, see Ferrary, CRAI 135.3 (1991): 557–77.

CIL III 447 + add. CIL III 7149 (= ILS 1862; IMilet 4.2.563)

Bilingual epitaph

Miletos

ca. A.D. 1–50

Connotation: associate in a societas publicanorum (i.e., socius/publicanus) ll. 1–4: Felici Primioni(s) X̅ X̅ X̅ X̅ (i.e., quadragesimae) port(oriorum) Asiae vilic(i) Mil(eti) se[r](uo) Φήλικι Πρειµίωνος κοιν(ωνῶν) M̅ (i.e., τεσσαρακοστῆς) λιµέν(ων) Ἀσίας οἰκον(όµου) Μειλήτ(ῳ) δούλῳ. Note: for the reading κοιν(ωνῶν), see add. CIL III 7149; cf. Dürrbach and Radet. Trans. (based on the Greek text): for Felix, the slave of Primio of the socii (i.e., publicani) of the fortieth-part (2.5%) (customs) tax of the harbours of Asia (i.e., portoria tax), the overseer in Miletos. Biblio.: Dürrbach and Radet, BCH 10 (1886): 268; Rostovtzeff, Staatspacht, 380; Kearsley, Greeks and Romans, 31–32, #40; Touloumakos, Tekmeria 1 (1995): 86–87, #4.

SEG 39.1180 Customs tax law of the province of Asia (lex portorii Asiae) Ephesus

A.D. 62

Connotation: associate in a societas publicanorum (i.e., socius/publicanus) l. 81: [καὶ τοῦ πράγµατος/χρήµατος] τούτου ἐνεχύρου λῆψις ἔστω κοινωνοῖς τοῖς τὰ γεωρύχια ἠργολαβηκόσιν κτλ.

370

Appendix

Trans. (Knibbe): [et huius rei] pignoris capio esto sociis qui terrae fossionem conduxerunt. Trans. (Cottier): “[and] there is to be the right to seizure of a pledge in this [matter] to the partners who have accepted the contract for the mines.” l. 119: καὶ τὸ σῶµα τοῦτο τῆι τῶν κοινωνῶν σφραγεῖδι σφρ̣ αγισθὲν ἐξαγέτω καὶ̣ εἰσαγέτω κτλ. Trans. (Knibbe): et servum (servam) sociorum (= societatis) sigillo sigillatum exagito et inagito. Trans. (Cottier): “and he is to export or import this slave branded with the brand of the socii.” Biblio.: ed. pr. Engelmann and Knibbe, EA 14 (1989): 1–206. Cf. Engelmann and Knibbe, EA 8 (1986): 19–32; Knibbe, JÖAI 69 (2000): 165, 170 (conjectural original Latin version); Nicolet, AE 1989 (1992): 214–22, #681; Cottier, Customs Law, 58–59, 72–73.

IDelos 4.1764 Dedication by a collegium compitalicium Delos

A.D. 93

Connotation: associate in a societas publicanorum (i.e., socius/publicanus) l. 5: Ἀλέξανδρος vac Κοινώνων ∆έκ[µου] Robert, BE (1950): 134, #36: Ἀλέξανδρος κοινωνῶν δεκ[άτης], i.e., Alexander, sociorum decumae (servus). Trans.: Alexander, (slave) of the socii (i.e., publicani) for the decuma. Biblio.: ed. pr. Jouguet, BCH 23 (1899): 70–72, #15.Hatzfeld, BCH 36 (1912): 28; Robert, BE (1950): 133–34, #36; idem, BE (1964): 158–59, #160.

IEph 2245 Epitaph Ephesus

A.D. I–II

Connotation: associate in a societas publicanorum (i.e., socius/publicanus) ll. 1–4: [Πόπ]λιος Κούρτιος | Φ[αῦσ?]τος ἄκτωρ κοι|νωνῶν εἰκοστῆς ἐλευ|θερίας. Trans.: P. Curtius Faustus (?), agent of the socii (i.e., publicani) of the twentieth-part (5%) manumission tax (i.e., vicesima manumissionum/libertatis). Biblio.: ed. pr. Keil, JÖAI 26 (1930): Beibl., 63–64. Cf. Robert, BE (1964): 158–59, #160.

371

A.2: Κοινωνός in Inscriptions

IIasos 2.416 (= OGI 522)

Epitaph

Iasos

A.D. I–II

Connotation: associate in a societas publicanorum (i.e., socius/publicanus) ll. 1–7: Ποῦλχερ | κοινωνῶν | λιµένων Ἀ|σίας οἰκο|νόµος ἐν | Ἰάσῳ. Trans.: Poulcher, overseer of the socii (i.e., publicani) of the portoria tax of Asia in Iasos. Trans. (Blümmel, IIasos 2.416): Pulcher, sociorum (quadragesimae) portuum Asiae vilicus Iasi. Note: the stone was originally discovered at Iasos, then later carried to Syme according to Robert, BE (1950): 133–34, #36; idem, BE (1964): 158–59, #160; idem, BE (1971): 510–11, #624. For the date see Hicks, JHS 8 (1887): 113. Biblio.: ed. pr. Chariaras, Mouseion, 49, #276. Cf. Dürrbach and Radet, BCH 10 (1886): 267–69, #5; Hicks, JHS 8 (1887): 113; Landvogt, ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΟΣ, 30–31, 46; Laet, Portorium, 279 (n. 5), 280 (n. 1); Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 21.

IIasos 2.417 Bilingual epitaph Iasos

A.D. I–II

Connotation: associate in a societas publicanorum (i.e., socius/publicanus)? ll. 1–6: [ – sociorum] | port(uum) Asiạ[e vilicus] | Iassi | ṣa[ – – ] | κοι[νωνῶν λιµένων Ἀσίας οἰκονόµος ἐν Ἰασῷ]. Note: the justification for this restoration can be found in Robert, BE (1971): 510–11, #624. Trans.: [overseer of the socii?] of the portoria tax of Asia in Iasos, [overseer?] of the socii (i.e., publicani) [of the portoria tax of Asia in Iasos?]. Biblio.: ed. pr. Pugliese Carratelli, ASAA 29/30 (1967–1968): 472–73, #38. Cf. Robert, BE (1971): 510–11, #624; AE 1974 (1978): 167, #625; AE 1979 (1982): 188–89, #610.

IG II² 3299 (= OGI 603)

Rotunda dedicated to Hadrian by Laodikea ad Mare (Syria) Athens Connotation: political ally (cf. P.Schøyen I 25: τῷ δήµῳ τῷ συµµαχία κ]α̣ὶ κοινωνία ἔστω)

A.D. 129–138 ̔Ρωµαίων φιλί|[α καὶ

ll. 1–6: Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρα … Ἁδριανὸν | … ἡ πόλις Ἰουλιέων τῶν καὶ Λαο|δικέων τῶν πρὸς θαλσσῃ τῆς ἱερᾶς καὶ ἀσύλου καὶ αὐτονόµου | ναυαρχίδος συνγενίδος φίλης συµµάχου κοινωνοῦ δήµου | Ῥωµαίων κτλ. Trans.: the city of the Julians and Laodikeans ad Mare, sacred, inviolable, autonomous, mistress of a fleet (epithet of cities; cf. LSJ, s.v. ναυαρχίς II.; OGI 587, n. 2), a rela-

372

Appendix

tive, friend, ally, and associate of the Roman people, (dedicated this) to the Emperor Caesar … Hadrian etc. Note: the epithet τῆς ἱερᾶς καὶ ἀσύλου καὶ αὐτονόµου is typical of Laodikeia ad Mare and other cities (cf. IBM 4.801; OGI 587; IGRR 3.869). For a history of its development and significance, see Kajava, RPAA 78 (2005): 527–41. Biblio.: Kajava, RPAA 78 (2005): 534–35.

IGBulg 1.79 bis (= CCET 34)

Votive to the Thracian hero Karabasmos Odessus (Varna)

ca. mid-A.D. II

Connotation: member of a collegium in honour of the hero Karabasmos (cf. the similar association of θοινεῖται in IGBulg 1.78 ter; Robert BE [1962]: 178–79, #206). ll. 2–3: Ἥρωι Καραβαζµῳ εὐχαριστήρ̣ ιον κοινωνοὶ οἱ περὶ Μέν̣ α̣ νδρον Ἀπολλωνίου καὶ Θεόδωρον Θεοδώρου Trans.: Menander, son of Apollonios, and Theodoros, son of Theodoros, and their associates, (have dedicated this relief) to the hero Karabazmos with gratitude. Biblio.: Robert, BE (1962): 178–79, #206; idem, BE (1965): 131–32, #257.

SEG 20.92 Funerary inscription Adanda (Cilicia)

ca. A.D. II

Connotation: business partner/member of a collegium? ll. 6–10: ἐὰν δὲ θέλωσι οἱ προ|[γε]γρ[αµ]µένοι, ἐξήτω ἐνθεῖναι| vac (?) κοινωνοῖς καὶ µετόχοις | τοῖς µετὰ Νέωνος Νοῦ ἅπασιν ἔδοξε µε|τ̣ έ̣χε̣ιν (+ list of names) Trans.: if the aforementioned persons wish to, it shall be permitted (for others?) to be buried (in the tomb). vacat (?) It pleased all the partners and associates of Neon the son of Nos, to share (this tomb). (list of names) Biblio.: ed. pr. Paribeni and Romanelli, MonAL 23 (1914): 166–67, #114. Cf. Robert, Hellenica 10 (1955): 60–61 (n. 1); Bean and Mitford, AnSt 12 (1962): 209–10, #33; Hagel and Tomaschitz, Repertorium, Ada 4d, p. 14.

Mon.fun.Palmyre IFC 40 Funerary inscription Palmyra (Tadmor, Syria)

A.D. 237

Connotation: partner in the use of a tomb (cf. Mon.fun.Palmyre IF 67) ll. 1–3: [Ἰούλιος Αὐ]ρήλιος [Εὐτύχης Ἀγγαίο]υ κοινωνὸν [προσελάβε]το ἐν τῷ ἀναγαί[ῳ …] τοῦ µνηµείο[υ Γάιο]ν Ἰούλιον Ἑρµείαν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ὅ ἀµφότεροι οἰκοδοµήσαντες ἀνενέωσαν ἐξ ἰδίων ἑαυτοῖς καὶ υἱοῖς καὶ υἱωνοῖς κτλ.

373

A.2: Κοινωνός in Inscriptions

Trans.: [Julius] Aur. [Eutyches, son of Haggaios], [took?] as partner in the upper (part) [ – ] of the tomb his brother [Gaius] Julius Hermenas, (tomb) which both built and restored at their own expense for themselves, their sons and grand-sons etc.

IGLSyr 4.1977 Funerary monument Tell Snān (Apamene, Syria)

A.D. 478

Connotation: partner in the use of a tomb Frag. A: ἔτους θπψʹ µε|νὸς ∆εσίου δε|κάτῃ, κοινων|οὶ Εὐσέβις Frag. B: Κύριος | Ἀδώνης(?) | Βαρσουµας Trans.: Year 789 (= A.D. 478), 10 th of the month of Desios, (the) partners (are): Eusebis, Kyrios, Adones, Barsoumas.

TAM 5.1.46 (= IMontan 85)

Epitaph

Karakuyu (Lydia)

A.D. V–VI

Connotation: member of the Montanist clergy (cf. Jerome, Epist. 41.3; Cod. justin. 1.5.20.3) ll. 1–3: ☩Παύλου ἁγ(ί)ου Φιλαδέλφου κοινωνοῦ κατὰ τόπον. ☩ Trans.: (tomb) of Saint Paul, son of Philadelphos, the koinonos of the district. Biblio.: cf. SEG 47.2323; Tabbernee, JECS 1.3 (1993): 276–77, #3.

SEG 15.809 (= IMontan 80)

Epitaph

Sebaste (Phrygia)

ca. A.D. V–VI

Connotation: member of the Montanist clergy (cf. Jerome, Epist. 41.3; Cod. justin. 1.5.20.3) ll. 1–5: Ἐ̣νταῦθα κῖται [ὁ] ἅγιος Παυλῖνος [µο]ί̣στης κ(αὶ) κοινωνὸς [ἔχω]ν τὴν χάριν [θ(εο)ῦ] ἔτη πεʹ. Trans.: here lies Saint Paulinos, a mystes and koinonos, [who had] the grace of [God] for 85 years. Note: the term µύστης is understood by Grégoire to mean “initiateur” (in divine mysteries and Montanist traditions), i.e., “l’évêque ou le métropolite, initiateur des prêtres, diacres.” Calder and Grégoire, BAB 38 (1952): 170–71. Cf. Tabbernee, JECS 1.3 (1993): 266. Biblio.: ed. pr. Calder and Grégoire, BAB 38 (1952): 164–67. Cf. Calder, AnSt 5 (1955): 37–38, #7; Tabbernee, JECS 1.3 (1993): 269–71, #1. See also the bibliography provided in IMontan 80.

374

Appendix

TAM 5.3.1882 (= IMontan 84)

Epitaph

Mendechora (Lydia)

A.D. 515

Connotation: member of the Montanist clergy (cf. Jerome, Epist. 41.3; Cod. justin. 1.5.20.3) ll. 1–2: Ἀνελήµφθη ὁ ἃγι[ο]ς Πραΰλι[ος] ὁ κοινωνὸς ὁ κατὰ τόπον ☧ κτλ. Trans.: Saint Praÿlios, the koinonos of the district, was taken up (to heaven) etc. Biblio.: ed. pr. Buckler, JHS 37 (1917): 95–99, #8. Cf. Grégoire, Byzantion 2 (1925): 329–35; Schepelern, Montanismus, 38, 173 (n. 153); Calder and Grégoire, BAB 38 (1952): 167–80; Tabbernee, JECS 1.3 (1993): 273–75, #2; Feissel, BE (2000): 606– 607, #846. See also the bibliography provided in IMontan 84.

A.2.1 Κοινωνός – Date Undetermined Mon.fun.Palmyre IF 67 Funerary temple Palmyra (Tadmor, Syria)

ca. A.D. III?

Connotation: partner in the use of a tomb (cf. Mon.fun.Palmyre IFC 40) ll. 1–2: … ἀφιέρωσα υἱοῖς καὶ υἱωνοῖς ἄρσεσι ἐπὶ τῷ κατὰ µηδένα τρόπον κοινωνὸν αὐτοῦ προσλαβεῖν καθ[ὰ ἔγραψα]. Trans.: I consecrated (this tomb) for my sons and grand-sons, in order that, by no means, they may take a partner, as [I have written].

INikaia 1210 Funerary inscription Nikaia (Bithynia)

Imperial era

Connotation: partner in the use of a tomb ll. 1–4: Γέννιος | ∆οκιµεὺς | µετὰ τῶν κοινωνῶν εὐχαριστοῦµεν | Παυλείνῃ. Trans.: Gennios of Dokimion with his associates gives thanks to Paulina. Biblio.: ed. pr. Diest and Anton, Neue Forschungen, 11. Cf. Mendel, BCH 24 (1900): 401, #75; Robert, Hellenica 10 (1955): 60–61; Horsley, NewDocs 4, 128, #28.

SEG 49.1788 (= SGO 2 09/10/02)

Funerary epigram for Markiane and her husband Krateia-Flaviopolis (Bythinia) Connotation: life-partner (i.e., wife). Cf. IKlaudiop 84.

Late imperial era?

375

A.2: Κοινωνός in Inscriptions

ll. 2–6: Ἡλικίης µὲν πεδός, ζωῆς χρόνον | ἔσχοµεν εἰκοσιπέντε ἔτη, | ὦ µόχθων κοινωνέ, παρήγορε, | σύνγαµε σεµνὴ ‖ Μαρκιανή κτλ. Trans.: a youth in the prime of life, we lived 25 years, O companion in hardship, comforter, revered wife Markiane etc. Biblio.: ed. pr. Kokkinia, EA 31 (1999): 167–70. Cf. Follet, BE (2000): 444, #55.

IBithDörner 2.119 (= IKlaudiop 84; SGO 2 09/09/09)

Funerary epigram

Klaudiu Polis (Bythinia)

Late imperial era

Connotation: life-partner (i.e., wife). Cf. SEG 49.1788. ll. 1–3: Ὦ µόχθων κοινωνέ, παρήγορε, |σύνγαµε σεµνή κτλ. Trans.: O companion of hardship, comforter, revered wife etc.

A.2.2 Κοινωνός – Doubtful Reading T. Homolle, BCH 50 (1926), 3–106. (= FD 3.1.294)

Law of Kadys on usury Delphi

ca. 390–360 B.C.

Connotation: association? (i.e., κοινώνιον as a diminutive of κοινόν/κοινωνία; cf. Homolle, BCH 50 [1926]: 28) l. 10: µήτε θίασον µηδὲ ἄλλο κοι[νώνιο]ν (FD 3:1.294: κοι[νόβιο]ν) Note: on the justification for this restoration, see Homolle, BCH 50 (1926), 28. Trans.: neither thiasos nor other [association?]

IPontEux 1.37 Marble fragment ca. II–I B.C.

Olbia (Borysthenes) Connotation: sense unclear (text very fragmented)

ll. 2–8: [ – ]ε δόσεις [ – – ]ηρίων µισθὸς [ – – ] άζων καὶ κοινω[νῶν? – – κ]αὶ πάντα ταῦτ[α – – δια]φερόντως µε[ – – κοι]νῆι δὲ τῆι π[όλει – –πρ]οσόδου

IOlbia 45 (= SEG 3.584) Honorific decree for Agathokles Olbia (Borysthenes) Connotation: N/A (unlikely reference to κοινωνός)

ca. A.D. 50–100

376

Appendix

ll. 3–6: [Ἀγ]α̣ θοκλῆς ἠυοκάτος ἀ[ποσταλεὶς] ὑπὸ τῶν ἡγουµένων πρὸς τὴν π̣ [όλιν] π̣ ερὶ πραγµάτων ἀνανκαίων κο[ινωνῶν] εὐσχήµονα τὴν ἐπιδηµίαν ἐπ[οιήσατο] κτλ. Hondius, SEG 3.584 (ll. 3–6): [Ἀγ]αθοκλῆς ἠουοκᾶτος ἀπ̣ [εσταλµένος | ὑ̣]πὸ τῶν ἡγουµένων πρὸς τὴν π[όλιν ἡµῶν] | π̣ ερὶ πραγµάτων ἀνανκαίων κο|σµίαν καὶ ‖ [ε]ὐσχήµονα τὴν ἐπιδηµίαν ἐπ[οιήσατο κτλ. Note: the restoration by Knipovič and Levi (IOlbia 45) is peculiar. One might have envisaged instead π̣ ερὶ πραγµάτων ἀνανκαίων κοινῶν, i.e., about the necessary public matters. We were not able to verify Hondius’ earlier reading against a photograph or a squeeze of the stone. Trans. (based on Hondius’ reading): When Agathokles, evocatus, [was sent] by the rulers to [our city] about the necessary matters, he made an orderly and honourable visit. Biblio.: Zubar, ACSS 2 (1995): 182–95 (pp. 192–93 for the date of this inscription).

IKilikiaBM 2.205 (= Hagel and Tomaschitz, Repertorium, AntK25, pp. 42–43)

Funerary inscription of a burial society

Antiocheia (Cilicia)

ca. A.D. I–II

Connotation: possible reference of κοινωνός as a member of a burial society (i.e., someone who owns a share in a tomb; cf. IKilikiaBM 2.201, pp. 180–82) ll. 7–8: [ – µὴ ἐξέσ]τω µηδένα τῶν κοι[νωνῶν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ µέρος πωλῆσαι] Trans.: [let] none of the associates [sell their share?].

SEG 30.1658 Fragmentary marble plaque Soli (Cyprus)

A.D. II

Connotation: associate in a societas publicanorum (i.e., socius/publicanus)? ll. 1–4: [ – κοι]|νωνῶν [ – µε]|τάλλων χ̣ [αλκοῦ κατὰ τὰς]| κώµας Λα[ – καὶ – καὶ] ‖ Φλασου τὸν ἑ[αυτοῦ πάτρωνα?]| τειµῆς [χάριν] Trans.: of the socii (?) in charge of the [copper?] mines [by the] villages of … (?) and Plasou, in honour of [their patron?] Biblio.: ed. pr. Markides, RDAC (1915): 17, #7. Cf. Mitford, Nymphaeum, 41 (n. 1); Mitford, ANRW 7.2:1327 (n. 177).

A.3: Κοινωνία in Inscriptions

377

A.3 Κοινωνία INomima 12 (= SEG 35.991)

Archaic laws

Lyttos (Crete)

Early V B.C.

Connotation: communal gathering Frag. B, ll. 1–4: [Θι]ο̣ί. | Ἔϝαδε | Λυκτίοισι | τᾶς κοιναωνίας | καὶ τᾶ(ς) συνκρίσιος | τ[ῶν προβ]άτων | καὶ τῶν καρταιπόδων | καὶ τᾶν ὐῶν | ὄρο(ν) µὲν ἦµεν | τόνδε· κτλ. Note: κοιναωνία here corresponds to a “forme non contracte de la diphtongue,” while ἦµεν is an infinitive. The sense of συνκρίσιος, for συγκρίσεις, is more difficult to ascertain. It basically signifies to combine, to gather. However, without the prefix συν- the verb κρίνω usually signifies to distinguish, to separate, which was probably the sense intended here. Cf. Van Effenterre, BCH 109 (1985): 167, 172, 183 (n. 100). Trans.: Gods! It pleased the Lyktians: as regards the gathering and separating of [sheep], cattle, and swines, the boundary will be as follows: etc. (ensues a fragmented list of directions delineating the assembling area). Biblio.: ed. pr. Van Effenterre, BCH 109 (1985): 157–88. Cf. Van Effenterre, CRAI 129 (1985): 246–57; Bile, Le dialecte, 32–34, #12; Link, Landverteilung, 117–18; Koerner and Hallof, Inschriftliche Gesetzestexte, 330–32, #88; Chaniotis, Orbis Terrarum 1 (1995): 46–48.

IKafizin 119 Votive from the Nymphaeum of Kafizin Cyprus

225–218 B.C.

Connotation: commercial association/company l. 1: ἀπὸ τῆς Ζήν[ο]νος κοινονί[ας το̑ν λίνο]ν κα[ὶ το]ῦ σπέρµατος κτλ. Note: in the Cypriote dialect, the genitive singular of ὁ λίνος is τῶ λίνω or τῶ λίνων, and not τοῦ λίνου. See Hadjioannou, RDAC (1982): 257. Trans.: from Zenon’s company of [flax] and seed etc. Biblio.: SEG 30.1608; Robert, BE (1952): 63–64, #177; idem, BE (1955): 374–75, #255; idem, BE (1981): 120–22, #636; Masson, BCH 105 (1981): 623–49; Hadjioannou, RDAC (1982): 254–59; Pouilloux, RPh 108 (1982): 99–103; Bingen, CE 57 (1982): 170–73; Schmitt, Gnomon 53.7 (1981): 635–41.

378

Appendix

IKafizin 265 Votive from the Nymphaeum of Kafizin Cyprus

225–218 B.C.

Connotation: commercial association/company l. 5: [ἀπὸ] τῆς Ζ[ήνον]ος κοινονίας vac το̑ν λίν[ο]ν καὶ τοῦ σπέρµατ[ος] Trans.: [from] Zenon’s company of flax and seed Biblio.: as above

IKafizin 217 Votive from the Nymphaeum of Kafizin Cyprus

225/224 B.C.

Connotation: commercial association/company l. 1: χ(άριτ)ι Ἀνδρό(κλο)υ̣ κοινονίας τ[ο̑ν λ]ίνον καὶ [τοῦ σπέρµατος Νύµφ]ηι τῇ … Ὀνησαγόρας Φιλουνίο[υ] δεκατη[φόρος – – ]. Trans.: by favour (?) of Androklos’ company of flax and [seed] to the [Nymph] … Onesagoras, son of Philounios, the dekatephoros (i.e., giver or collector of the tithe). Biblio.: as above

IKafizin 219 Votive from the Nymphaeum of Kafizin Cyprus

223/222 B.C.

Connotation: commercial association/company l. 1: [χ(άριτ)]ι Ἀνδρό(κλο)υ κοινονίας τοῦ … [Ὀνησαγόρας Φιλουνίου] κουρεὺς ὁ δηκατεφόρος Νύµφῃ [τῆι] κτλ. Trans.: [by favour?] of Androklos’ company … [Onesagoras the son of Philonios?] the barber collecting/offering the tithe (?) to [the] Nymph etc. Biblio.: as above

Boethius, ABSA 25 (1921–23): 408–15. Hellenistic decree from the Argive hinterland Mycenae

ca. 195 B.C.

Connotation: participation in festivals ll. 12–14: [καὶ ἀν]ανεώ[ἁσθαι τοῖς Λακεδαιµονίοις τ]ὰν κοινανίαν ἀγ[ώνων] κτλ. Trans.: (it pleased the assembly) to renew (?) [with the Lacedaemonians] the participation in the [festivals ] etc.

A.3: Κοινωνία in Inscriptions

379

IG VII 2225 (= SIG 646; Michel 69; Fontes 37; FIRA2 1. 31; Sherk 2)

Senatus consultum 170 B.C.

Thisbae (Boeotia) Connotation: business partnership/association (i.e., societas?)

ll. 53–56: (VII) Ὡσαύτως περὶ ὧν οἱ αὐτοὶ Θισβεῖς ἐνεφάνισαν περὶ σίτου καὶ ἐλ[αί]|ου ἑαυτοῖς κοινωνίαν πρὸς Γναῖον Πανδοσῖνον γεγονέναι, περὶ τού|[του] τοῦ πράγµατος, [ἐ]ὰν κριτὰς λαβεῖν βούλωνται, τούτοις κριτὰς δο[ῦ]|ναι ἔδοξεν. Trans.: similarly, the same Thisbaeans have declared that a partnership (i.e., societas?) has been established between them and Cn. Pandosinus concerning (the provision of?) grain and oil, on this matter it has been decided that judges are to be appointed for them, if they so wish. Trans. (FIRA2 1.31): Item quod iidem Thisbenses significauerunt de frumento et oleo sibi societatem cum Gnaeo Pandosino fuisse, de ea re, si iudices accipere uellent, iis iudices dandos esse censuerunt. Biblio.: ed. pr. Foucart, ArchMiss 7 (1872): 322–79. Cf. Mommsen, Ephemepi 1 (1872): 278–98; Schmidt, MDAI (A) 4 (1879): 235–49; Schmidt, ZRG 2 (1881): 116–34; Foucart, MAI 37.2 (1906): 305–46. See also Johnson, Roman Statutes, 28–30, #30; Abbott and Johnson, Municipal Administration, 254–56, #5; Nicolet, L’ordre, 348; Baumert, Koinonein, 258.

IPriene 109 Honorary decree for Herodes Priene

ca. 120 B.C.

Connotation: marital union ll. 162–163: κρίνας ἐλθεῖν πρὸς γάµου κοινωνίαν κτλ. Trans.: having decided to enter marital union etc. Biblio.: Holleaux, BCH 31 (1907): 382–88.

Waldmann, Kultreformen, 81–89, A 96–104 Decree of king Antiochos I of Kommagene Arsameia-on-the-Nymphaios (Kommagene)

ca 64–38 B.C.

Connotation: commonality? ll. 96–104: Ἱερεύς, ὅστις ὑπ’ εµοῦ καθέσταται βασιλέως τε Μιθραδάτον Καλλινίκου, πατρὸς ἐµοῦ, καὶ σὺν αὐτῶι τιµῆς καὶ µνήµης ἐµῆς, ν ἥν ἐπὶ τόπου τούτου κοσµήσας πατρὸς ἱεροθέσιον ἐν Ἀρσαµείαι τῆι πρὸς Νυµφαίωι ποταµῶι συνκαθωσίωσα καὶ τὰς ἐµὰς ἰκόνας ταῖς ἐκείνου καὶ χάριτος δικαίας κοινωνίαν φύσει τε ἐµῆι καὶ στοργῆι πατρώιαι συνέζευξα κτλ. Trans.: the priest, who has been appointed by me for (the service) of King Mithradates Kallinikos, my father, and with him for my own honour and memory, vac which I have adorned over this place, the mausoleum of (my) father in Arsameia by the Nymphaios river, and I laid down my portraits with his (portraits) and joined together in a

380

Appendix

commonality of dutiful gratitude with respect to my appearance and filial affection etc. Trans. (Waldmann): “Der Priester, der von mir für den König Mithradates Kallinikos, meinen Vater, und mit ihm für meinen Kult und mein Gedächtnis eingesetzt ist, das ich zugleich geweiht habe, als ich an diesem Platze das Hierothesion meines Vaters in Arsameia am Nymphaios verschönerte und meine Darstellungen mit denen von ihm vereinigte und dadurch die Gemeinsamkeit der dankbaren Verehrung (für uns beide) gemäss meiner Natur und der Liebe zu meinem Vater herstellte.” Trans. (Danker): “and made it possible for my own person to share in the meet and due thanksgiving that was affectionately accorded to my father.” Biblio.: Danker, Benefactor, 247–55, #42.

P.Schøyen I 25 (= SEG 55.1452)

Treaty between the Romans and the Lycians (bronze tablet) Xanthos (Lycia)?

46 B.C.

Connotation: political community/union (cf. IG II² 3299: φίλης συµµάχου κοινωνοῦ δήµου Ῥωµαίων) ll. 6–8: τῷ δήµῳ τῷ ̔Ρωµαίων καὶ τῷ κοινῷ τῶν λυκίων φιλί|[α καὶ συµµαχία κ]α̣ὶ κοινωνία τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον ἀσφαλὴς καὶ ἀµετάθετος ἔστωι ἄ|[νευ δόλου πο]νηροῦ κτλ. Trans.: let there be unfailing and immutable friendship, [and (political) alliance], and (political) community/union, (between) the Roman people and the Lycian koinon for all time, [without] wicked [treachery], etc. Trans. (Mitchell): “Between the Roman people and the commune of the Lycians let there be friendship [and alliance] and community unshaken and unaltered for all time without malicious [deceit].” Trans. (Follet): “Que l’amitié, l’alliance, l’union entre le peuple romain et le koinon des Lyciens soient assurées et inébranlables pour toujours, sans malveillante tromperie.” Biblio.: Ferrary and Rousset, BE (2006): 638–42, #143; Sánchez, Chiron 37 (2007): 363– 81; Follet, AE 2005 (2008): 514–21, #1487.

CIG 4040 Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Monumentum Ancyranum) Ancyra

ca. A.D. 19

Connotation: political alliance/partnership Col. 6, ll. 8–11: πλεῖστά τε ἄλλα ἔθνη πεῖραν ἔ[λα]|βεν δήµου Ῥωµαίων πίστεως ἐπ᾽ ἐµοῦ ἡγεµόν[ο]ς|, οἷς τὸ πρὶν οὐδεµία ἦν πρὸς δῆµον Ῥωµαίων πρεσ‖βειῶν καὶ φιλίας κοινωνία. Latin version (Cooley): Plurimaeque aliae gentes exper[tae stunt p(opuli) Ro]m(ani) fidem me principe, quibus antea cum populo Roman[o nullum extitera]t legationum et amicitiae [c]ommercium.

A.3: Κοινωνία in Inscriptions

381

Trans.: and many other nations experienced the trust of the Roman people during my principate, (nations) who before had never had any alliance of embassies and friendship with the Roman people. Trans. (LCL): “And a large number of other nations experienced the good faith of the Roman people during my principate who never before had had any interchange of embassies or of friendship with the Roman people.” Biblio.: Brunt and Moore, Res gestae, 35; Scheid, Res gestae, 23; Judge, First Christians, 218; Cooley, Res Gestae, 96–97, 254–55; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 12; Baumert, Koinonein, 183.

IKilikiaBM 2.201 Funerary inscription of a burial society Lamos (Cilicia)

ca. mid-A.D. I

Connotation: share in a burial society/tomb ll. 11–24: κοινὸν ἡµῶν τὸ µνῆµα κα|ὶ µὴ ἐξέστω τινι ἄλλο σῶ̣µ̣ α̣ | θαπῆναι (sic). ἐὰν δέ τις θάψει | ἀλλότριων (sic) ἀποτινέτω τῷ | ∆ιῒ ζεβγος βοῶν καὶ µνᾶς τρ‖εῖς, Ἀπό£̣ ωνι µνᾶς τρῖς καὶ ζεῦ|γος βο[ῶ]ν καὶ δήµῳ µνᾶς τρεῖς.| ἐὰν δέ τις ἀν? καὶ κοινωνε[ί]|αν ἑ[αυτοῦ θέλῃ π]ωλῆσαι ο̣ ὐκ ἐξ ὸ̣ ν | ΠΕΙ[ – – οὐ γὰρ ἔξεστι]‖ ἔξοθεν πωλῆσαι, ἀλ|λ̣ ὰ̣ λ̣ α̣ µβανέτ̣ω ἐκ τοῦ | κοινοῦ στατῆρες τριά|κοντα καὶ ἀποχωρείτω κτλ. Trans.: (list of names) this is our common funerary monument, and it is not permitted to anyone to bury another body (here). If anyone buries someone else, he/she must pay to Zeus a yoke of oxen and three minas, to Apollo three minas and a yoke of oxen and to the demos three minas. If anyone goes up (i.e., goes to Selge?) and [wishes to?] sell his/her share, PEI [… it is not permitted?] to sell (it) from there, but let him/her receive from the koinon thirty staters and depart etc. Note: the date is suggested by the use of µναῖ, i.e., ante Vespasian (cf. IKilikiaBM 2, p. 178). Biblio.: ISelge T40; Hagel and Tomaschitz, Repertorium, Dir 10, p. 79; Robert, BE (1972): 499, #523; Nijf, Civic World, 47; Kloppenborg in Voluntary Associations, 29 (n. 42); Ascough, Macedonian Associations, 76; Harland, JBL 124.3 (2005): 497–98.

SEG 28.1566 Letters and decree of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius Kyrene

A.D. 154

Connotation: sharing/participation (in the holding of assizes) ll. 75–77: ἀφαιρεθῆναι δὲ τοὺς ἔχοντας ὑπὲρ τ̣ [οῦ] δοθῆναι τοῖς οὐκ ἔχουσιν [ἀδικῆσ]α̣ ί µοι δοκεῖ πλὴν εἰ µὴ ἄρα ὑµεῖν βουλοµένοις εἴην̣ τ̣ [ὸ] τοιαύτην κοινωνίαν κ̣ α[ταστῆσαι] vac κτλ. Trans.: and I considered it [unjust] that those who have (the right to hold an assize; cf. l. 74: τὴν ἀγοραίαν) be deprived (of it) and those who do not have (the same right) be given (it), unless the appointment of such a participation (in the holding of the assizes) would be with your consent etc.

382

Appendix

Trans. (Reynolds, ll. 70–77): “The Bereniceans requested that an assize should be held in their city; but it seemed to me difficult to add to the number of court-days, for, as you know yourselves, the proconsul, having charge of Crete at the same time as of Cyrene, is unable to spend more time with you than he already does. Since the Bereniceans request that the assize should be held in each city in turn, I replied that it is not clear how the cities which already have an assize will take it if they do not have it annually as in the past; for those who have it to be deprived of it in order to give it to those who do not seems to me to inflict injustice, unless the establishment of such a rotation were made with your consent.” (emphasis added) Biblio.: ed. pr. Fraser and Applebaum, JRS 40 (1950): 77–87 (ll. 1–49). Cf. Reynolds, JRS 68 (1978): 111–21 (publishes additional pieces to complete the inscription, i.e., ll. 1–85). See also Oliver, Hesperia 20 (1951): 32–33; Larsen, CP 47 (1952): 7–16; Oliver, GRBS 20 (1979): 157–59 (ll. 78–85); Robert, BE (1979): 536–37, #655. On the organisation of assizes in general, see Burton, JRS 65 (1975): 92–106.

SEG 29.127 Edict of Marcus Aurelius Athens

ca. A.D. 174/5

Connotation: participation (i.e., membership) in the Panhellenion Frag. E, ll. 20–21: Ἐπίγονος Ἐπικτήτου ἐκκαλεσάµενος ἀπὸ Ἰουλ ∆αµοστράτου πρὸς Εὔδηµον Ἀφροδεισί[ου πα]ρὰ τοῖς [ἐ]µοῖς Κυιντιλίοις ἀγωνιεῖται περὶ τῆς τοῦ Πανελληνίου κοινωνίας Frag. E, ll. 27–30: Νόστιµος ∆ιονυσίου γεγενῆσθαι κατὰ τοὺς νόµους Ἀ[ρεοπα]γείτης οὐκ ἔδειξεν, ἀλλ’ εἰ ἔστιν ἐν τούτωι ὡς τῆι ἐξ Ἀρείουπάγου βουλῆι προσγραφῆναι δύνασθαι δ̣ ι [̣ αγνώ]σουσιν οἱ Κυιντίλιοι· διότι γ’ ἂ̣ν ἀπεωσθείη τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ συνεδρίου τῶν Πανελλήνων [δοκεῖ ἀποδε]δεῖχθαι κτλ. Trans.: (ll. 22–23) Epigonos, son of Epictetos, having appealed from Julius Damostratos against Eudemos, son of Aphrodeisios, will plead before my Quintilii concerning his participation in the Panhellenion (Jones: “his membership in the Panhellenion”). (ll. 27–29) Nostimos, son of Dionysios, did not prove that he had become an Areopagite according to the laws, but if it is in this (matter) that he be able to be registered in the council of the Areopagos, the Quintilii shall decide. For [I think] I demonstrated why he should be expelled from the participation in the synedrion of the Panhellenes (Jones: “membership of the Board of the Panhellenes”) etc. Biblio.: ed. pr. Oliver, Hesperia Sup 13 (1970): 1–168. Cf. Jones, ZPE 8 (1971): 161–83; Oliver, ZPE 14 (1974): 265–67; Williams, ZPE 17 (1975): 37–56; Oliver, ZPE 16 (1975): 315–16; idem, ZPE 20 (1976): 179–81; idem, AJP 100.4 (1979): 543–58; Follet, RPh 105 (1979): 29–43; Horsley, NewDocs 4, 83–87, #20.

A.3: Κοινωνία in Inscriptions

383

IAphrodArchive 18 Letter of Severus and Caracalla to Aphrodisias Aphrodisias (archive wall)

A.D. 198

Connotation: political partnership (i.e., sharing of imperial power) ll. 2–3: ἡσθέντας ὑµᾶς ἐπὶ τῷ τοὺς θρασυνοµένους [βαρ]βάρους νενεικῆσ[θα]ι̣ καὶ πᾶσαν [τὴν οἰκου]µ[ένην ἐν εἰρήνῃ γεγενῆσ]|θαι σφόδρα ἔπρεπεν εὐφρανθῆναι τῆς πατρῴας κοινωνίας εἰς ἐµὲ Ἀντωνεῖνον ἡκούσης [ – – ] κτλ. Trans.: while you delighted at the victory over the arrogant barbarians and the [establishment of the] whole [world in peace?], it was greatly appropriate that you celebrated (with a banquet) the advent of my father’s (political) partnership (i.e., joint rule) with me, Antoninus, etc. Trans. (Reynolds): “it was most appropriate that you … celebrated the coming of joint rule shared with my father to me, Antoninus.” Trans. (Oliver): “You … very properly rejoiced that the partnership with my father had come to me, Antoninus.” Biblio.: Robert, BE (1983): 154–55, #379; Oliver, Greek Constitutions, 443–44, #281.

IGBulg 2.659 Letter of Severus and Caracalla to the Nicopolatians Nicopolis ad Istrum (Bulgaria)

A.D. 198

Connotation: political partnership (i.e., sharing of imperial power) ll. 21–31: Φανερωτάτην προθυµίαν ὑµῶν εἴδοµεν δι|ὰ τοῦ ψηφίσµατος· ὡς γὰρ εὖνοι καὶ εὐσεβεῖς [ἄν]|δρες καὶ τὴν ἀµείνω σπουδάζοντες ὑµεῖν ὑπάρ|χειν παρ’ ἡµεῖν κρίσιν οὕτως ἐδηλώσατε τοῖς | παροῦσιν συνησθέντες καὶ δηµοσίαν ἀγα‖γόντες ἑορτὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς τῶν ἡµετέρων ἀγαθῶν [εὐ]|ανγέλµασι εἰρήνης τε πανδήµου πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ὑπαρχούσης τῇ τῶν ἀεὶ θρασυν[ο]|µένων περὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν βαρβάρων ἥττῃ καὶ ἡµῶν ἐ[ν]| δικαίαι κοινωνίαι συνεζευγµένων, καίσαρα ‖ ἐχόντων οἰκεῖον καὶ γνήσιον. Trans.: we know your most illustrious eagerness by means of your decree. For as good willed and devout men earnestly desiring to have the better (standing) in our judgement of you, so you have plainly rejoiced in the present (circumstances) by organising public festivals for the good news of our benevolence and of the universal peace available to all mankind, because of the defeat of the arrogant barbarians who were constantly attacking our empire and our joining together in a righteous partnership, having a Caesar (i.e., Geta) who is legitimate and from our house. Biblio.: Oliver, Greek Constitutions, 438–41, #217.

SEG 21.506 Honorary decree for M. Ulpius Eubiotus Athens

ca. A.D. 230

Connotation: participation in sacrifices ll. 23–25: [εἰσκαλεῖσ]θαι δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ εἰς τὸ θέατρον διὰ τῶν πρυτάνεων ἀεὶ ἐπὶ προεδρίᾳ καὶ κοινωνίᾳ θυσιῶν καὶ [σπονδῶν τῶν ἔν τε ποµ]παῖς πάσαις καὶ ἐκκλησίαις γεινοµένων

384

Appendix

αὐτόν τε καὶ τοὺς παῖδας αὐτοῦ τοὺς κρ. Οὔλ. Τεισαµε[νὸν] [καὶ Πουπήνιον Μά]ξιµον κτλ. Trans.: (resolved) that he and his sons, the viri clarissimi Ulpius Tisamenus and Ulpius [Pupienus] Maximus, be called also into the theatre through the (invitation) of the Prytanes (and be granted) for all times a front row seat and a share of the sacrifices and [libations] taking place at all religious processions and assemblies etc. Note: the restoration of εἰσκαλεῖσθαι, ποµπαῖς, and Πουπήνιον Μάξιµον, is certain and is based on parallel passages in the same inscription (cf. Oliver, Hesperia Sup 6 [1941]: 139). Biblio.: SEG 21.505; Oliver, HesperiaSup 6 (1941): 125–41, #31; idem, Hesperia 20 (1951): 350–54; idem, ZPE 38 (1980): 107–14. For the duplicate version see also Meritt, Hesperia 32 (1963): 26–30, #27.

IAphrodArchive 21 Letter of emperor Gordian III to Aphrodisias Aphrodisias (archive wall)

A.D. 243

Connotation: partnership/participation (in a benefaction) ll. 3–6: Τὸ τῆς Ἀσίας βούλευµα, τὸ καὶ ὑµᾶς καταστῆσαν εἰς κο[ινωνί]αν τῆς π̣ ρ̣[ὸς] τ̣ο̣ ὺ̣ς̣ ἀτυχήσαντας | ἐπικουρίας, οὐκ ἐπίταγµ̣ α ἦν, οὐδὲ γὰρ οἷόν τε ἐπιτάγµατι χρῆσθ̣ αι, π[ρὸς το]ὺ̣ς ̣ ἐλευθ̣ έ̣ρους, ἀ£̣̣ ὰ πολείτευµα | χρηστὸν ἐν µετουσίᾳ καθιστᾶν ὑµᾶς φιλανθρώπου πράξεως καὶ ο[ἵη]ς καὶ καθ’ ὑµᾶς πράττετε ἐν [κα]τα‖σκευῇ τινος ο̣ ἰ̣κοδοµήµατος συνεπιλαµβανόµενοι τῆς ἀναστάσε̣[ω]ς τοῖ̣ς ̣ δεοµένοις κτλ. Note: the restoration κοινωνίαν is fairly certain and accepted by epigraphists. It is difficult to see what other eight-letter word starting with κο and finishing with αν could be employed here. Trans.: the resolution of Asia which set you also in partnership with the relief effort towards those suffering from misfortune was not an injunction, for nothing of the sort (can be) proclaimed by decree to those who are free, but (it was) a good administrative measure which associated you with a benevolent action, such as that which you undertook also among yourselves when you took part in the preparation for the construction of some building for those in need etc. Trans. (Reynolds): “The resolution of Asia which associated you too with those assisting the victims of misfortune was not a command … but a good administrative act placing you among those who take part in beneficent activity of a type which you undertake also among yourselves when you help with preparations for the erection of a house for those in need.” Biblio.: SEG 32.1097; Robert, BE (1983): 154–55, #382; AE 1984 (1987): 254, #875; Oliver, Greek Constitutions, 548–49, #281.

385

A.3: Κοινωνία in Inscriptions

IDidyma 159 (= SGO 1 01/19/37)

Inscription honouring the proconsul Festus Didyma

ca. A.D. 286–293

Connotation: community ll. 7–11: κόσµον γὰρ αὐτῇ ξεστὸν ἀµφιθεὶς τόσον | τοῦ µὲν θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον εἰς µνήµην ἄγει|, ἀστοὺς δὲ νυµφείοισι διασῴζει ῥοαῖς|, κοινωνίαν µειµούµενος τὴν ∆ελφικὴν| πρὸς Κασταλίαν κτλ. Trans.: for, having arranged perfectly hewed stones around it (i.e., the fountain), he (Festus) remembers the gift of god (i.e., Apollo), and preserves the townspeople by means of the streams of the Nymphs, imitating the Delphic community with respect to Kastalia (i.e., the spring at Delphi dedicated to Apollo) etc. Trans. (SGO 1 01/19/37): “Denn er hat sie mit diesem aus geglätteten Steinen gefertigten Schmuck umgeben und an die Gabe des Gottes erinnert und rettet die Städter durch den Strom der Nymphen, wobei er die delphische Gemeinsamkeit (des Apollon) mit Kastalia zum Vorbild nahm. ”

IRT 310 (= SEG 15.881; SEG 53.1180; SIRIS 798)

Dedication (marble base) to Zeus Megas Sarapis Leptis Magna

ca. A.D. II–III

Connotation: cultic association (cf. SEG 53.1180: “ἀπὸ κοινωνίας: the dedication results from a collective effort, with the dedicant representing a religious κοινόν”) Front, ll. 1–4: ∆ιὶ Μεγάλῳ Σαράπιδι Π(όπλιος) Σέρ(ουιος) Η[ – – ]οχοος ἀπὸ κοινωνίας εὐχὴν ἀ(νέθηκε) κ(αὶ) ἀποδω (i.e., ἀπέδωκεν/ἀποδίδωµι?) Trans.: to Zeus Megas Sarapis. Poplios Serouios [ – – ]ochoos from the association. I set up and paid for this votive. Note: Pugliese Carratelli’s suggestion that ἀπὸ κοινωνίας stands for “da una colletta” seems to follow (erroneously) the LSJ entry referencing Rom 15:26 (cf. LSJ, s.v. κοινωνία, 2.III.) Biblio.: Reynolds, PBSR 23 (1955): 143; Pugliese Carratelli, QAL 18 (2003): 274–75.

IHadrianoi 71 Epitaph Mysian region

ca. A.D. II–III

Connotation: share of a tomb ll. 1–11: ∆ίων Ἡρακλείδου | τειµίως [ζ]ήσας παρὰ | τῷ θεῷ [ἐ]ποίησα ἑαυ|τῷ τὸ µν̣ [η]µεῖον | εὐχαριστίων (sic) Μητρο‖φάνῃ τῷ θρεπτῷ. | ∆ίων Ἡρακλίδου συνε|χώρησα Ἀσκληπίδῃ{ς} Ἀπολ|λιναρίου Πικρηνῷ τὴν εἰς | αἰῶνα κοινωνείαν ‖ ἐν τῷ µνηµίῳ.

386

Appendix

Trans.: I Dion, son of Herakleides, who lived honourably before god, made for myself the tomb, being grateful to my adopted son Metrophanes. I Dion, son of Heraklides have granted to Asklepides, son of Apollinarios, from Pikrenos, a perpetual share of the tomb.

ISeleukia 148 Funerary inscription Zeugma (Syria)

A.D. 325

Connotation: common use of a tomb ll. 1–11: Ἔτους ζλχʹ, λʹ ǀ ∆ύστρου, σπηλεοǀκοινωνίας (Robert: σπήλεο[ν] κοινωνίας) Μ[ι]γ|δέου καὶ Βαγράθ|θου, µεριτίας ἀνα‖τολικῆς Μιγδέου ǀ καὶ δυτικῆς τῶι ǀ Βαγράθθου ΛΧǀΜω (= λγµῶ) πεποίητε | Εἷς Θεὸς ὁ δύναη ‖ τὰ πάντα. Trans.: Year 636 (of the Seleucids), 30 th of Dustros, communal tomb of Migdeos and Bagraththos, of which the eastern part (belongs) to Migdeos and the western (part) to the lot of Bagraththos. It is completed. One God who can (do) all things. Biblio.: ed. pr. Mouterde and Poidebard, Le limes de Chalcis, 212–13, #47. Cf. Robert, BE (1946–1947): 358–59, #204.

A.3.1 Κοινωνία – Date Undetermined SEG 4.247 (= IStratonikeia 22)

Invitation to the mysteries of Zeus Panamaros Panamara (Caria)

ca. II B.C. to A.D. II

Connotation: participation in sacrifices ll. 2–9: Εἰ καὶ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ τὴν ἑστίασιν καλεῖ | καὶ κοινὴν καὶ ἰσότιµον παρέχι τράπεζαν τοῖς ὁποθενοῦ[ν] | ἀφικνουµένοις … δ|[ι]ὰ τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν ταῖς πόλεσιν ἡµῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλας συγγέ|νιαν καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν κοινωνίαν καλῶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ὑµᾶς καὶ | παρακαλῶ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῇ πόλι τῆς παρ’ αὐτῷ µετέχιν εὐφροσύ|νης κτλ. Trans.: If the god calls all men to his banquet and supplies a common table with equal honours to people, wherever they are from, … , for the sake of the existing kinship between our cities and the participation in the sacrifices, I invite you to (the temple of) God and I also invite those in the city to share in the festivities in his presence etc. Trans. (Robert): “Si le dieu appelle tous les hommes au repas et assure une table commune et avec des honneurs égaux à ceux qui viennent de partout, … à cause de la parenté qui existe entre nos villes et de notre communauté de cultes, je vous invite auprès du dieu et j’invite ceux de votre ville à participer à la liesse du banquet auprès du dieu” (emphasis added). Biblio.: ed. pr. Hatzfeld, BCH 51 (1927): 73–74, #11. Cf. SEG 4.250; SEG 4.255; Roussel, BCH 51 (1927): 123–37; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 54, 102; Robert, IKlaros 1 (pp. 54–55).

387

A.3: Κοινωνία in Inscriptions

SEG 4.250 (= IStratonikeia 25)

Invitation to the mysteries of Zeus Panamaros Panamara (Caria)

ca. II B.C. to A.D. II

Connotation: participation in sacrifices ll. 2–3: Καὶ ὁ θεὸς ὑµᾶς ἐπὶ τὴν ἱερὰν ἑ[στί]ασιν καλῖ, πᾶσιν µὲν ἀνθρώποις | αἰεὶ τοῦτο παρέχων, µάλιστα δὲ οἷς ἐστιν κοινωνία τῶν ἱερῶν κτλ. Trans.: And the god calls you to his sacred banquet, as he always supplies this to all mankind, and especially to those for whom there is participation in the sacrifices etc. Biblio.: ed. pr. Hatzfeld, BCH 51 (1927): 74, #14. Cf. Roussel, BCH 51 (1927): 123–37; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 54, 102; Robert, IKlaros 1 (pp. 54–55).

SEG 4.255 (= IStratonikeia 32)

Invitation letter to the mysteries of Zeus Panamaros Panamara, Caria

ca. II B.C. to A.D. II

Connotation: participation in sacrifices ll. 2–5: [ – τῆς παλαι]|ᾶς συγγενείας, καὶ ἡ τῶν ἱερῶν κοινω[νία – ] |νος καὶ τὰς συγγενῖς καὶ ὁµοφύλους [πόλεις – πρὸς τὸν πὰ]‖τ〚ο〛ριον θεόν κτλ. Trans.: [ – ?] of kinship, and the participation in the sacrifices [ – ]nos (?) and those of same kinship and tribe [ – ?]torios (?) the god. Biblio.: ed. pr. Hatzfeld, BCH 51 (1927): 77, #19. Cf. Roussel, BCH 51 (1927): 123–37; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 54, 102; Robert, IKlaros 1 (pp. 54–55).

CIL III 14184.9 (= ITyana 101)

Bilingual epitaph Tyana (Cappadocia)

Roman era

Connotation: marital union ll. 5–14: Βειταλειανὸς κερκείτωρ σευούρα(ς) Σευηρείνου πρεποσείτου … Κύζην παραλαβόντα µου κοινωνείαν ἐς ἡµέρας ζῇ δεκαπένται αὐτὴν ἀπώλεσα Βειταλειανός. Κύζη µου, σῴζου. Trans.: Vitalianus, circitor saburrae (i.e., watchman of the sand accumulating in water cisterns/aqueduct; cf. AE 1974 [1978]: 172–73, #637), (in service of) Severianus the praepositus … taking Kyze in marriage she lived for fifteen days (after which) I, Vitalianus, lost her. Be saved, my Kyze! Note: the sense of κοινωνείαν is straight-forward here, i.e., “κοινωνείαν meint natürlich die κοινωνία γάµου” (cf. ITyana 101, p. 262). Biblio.: AE 1974 (1978): 172–73, #637.

388

Appendix

Herrmann-Malay, Lydia 52 Dedication to Mis Tiamou Artemidorou (a new cult) Hamidiye region (Lydia)

Late imperial era

Connotation: marital union ll. 3–8: Ἀφιὰς συνέθετο γάµου κοινωνίαν Γαιίου λίαν Κόσµου θυγατέραν, [ἥ]τις οὐκ ἐτήρησε τὴν πίστιν τῷ Γαείῳ ἀλλ’ ἐξήµαρτεν· µέγας οὖν ΟΠΩΝ ὁ θεὸς· ἐκόλασεν αὐτή[ν] κτλ. Trans.: Aphphias joined in marital union Gaius to Ioulia, the daughter of Kosmos, who was not faithful to Gaius but failed (him). So the great god Opon punished her etc.

IG XIV.102 (= IMT NoerdlTroas 19; CIG 5960)

Dedication to Ithyphallos (i.e., Priapos) Porta Flaminia, Rome?

Date?

Connotation: religious association/cult or community (cf. Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 23: “Κοινωνία = τὸ κοινόν”) ll. 2–5: Ἰθυφάλλωι κορυνηφόρωι κηποφύλακι κλεπτοµάστιγι, εὐεργεσίας καὶ εὐδοκίας χάριν Λαµψακίων (CIG 5960: Λαµψακ[ην]ῶν) κοινωνία. Trans.: to Ithyphallos (i.e., Priapos), club-bearer (i.e., body-guard), watchman of gardens, scourger of thieves, on account of his benefaction and good-will. The koinonia of the Lampsakians (set it up). Note: Franz (CIG 5960) seemed unsure about the authenticity of this inscription (Si genuinum monumentum est, pertinet ad Priapum Lampsaci cultum). Lampsakos is most often cited as the birth place of the ithyphallic cult (cf. Heinze, “Priapus,” BNP). Biblio.: Hübner, Repertorium 1.13; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 23; Prêteux, REG 118 (2005): 252 (n. 34). On the Ithyphallic cult, see Heinze, “Priapus,” BNP.

A.3.2 Κοινωνία – Doubtful Reading Agora 16.161 (= SEG 21.530; Sokolowski, LSCGSuppl. 20)

Decree of Orgeones

Athens

Early III B.C.

Connotation: participation in sacrifices (l. 3)? community (ll. 5–6)? For Meritt (Hesperia 11.3 [1942]: 283), κοινωνία refers to a “community of interest” here, and is to be differentiated from κοινόν (l. 11). ll. 2–6: [δεδόχθαι] τ̣ οῖς ὀ[ρ]γεῶσιν ὅπως ἂν δι̣[ατηρῆται τῶν θυσιῶν ἡ κοινω]νία εἰς τὸν ἅπαντα χρό[νον τῶι κοιν]ῶι τῶι πρὸς τοῖς Καλλιφάνους καὶ τῶ[ι τοῦ ἥρωος Ἐ]χέλου, ἀναγράψαντας τοὺς ὀφείλοντά̣[ς τι εἰς τὴν κοι]νωνίαν ἐν στήλει λιθίνει κτλ. Note: the restoration of [τῶν θυσιῶν ἡ κοινω]νία in l. 3 is justified by [κοι]νωνίαν in ll. 5– 6, according to Meritt, Hesperia 11.3 (1942): 283.

389

A.3: Κοινωνία in Inscriptions

Trans.: [it pleased] the Orgeones (i.e., sacrificing associates; cf. Ferguson and Nock, HTR 37.2 [1944]: 62) that [the participation in the sacrifices be maintained?] at all times for [the koinon] by Kalliphanes’ property and that of the [hero?] Echelos, having engraved (the names of) those owing [something to the] association on a stele etc. Biblio.: ed. pr. Meritt, Hesperia 11.3 (1942): 282–87, #55. Cf. Ferguson and Nock, HTR 37.2 (1944): 76–79, 94–95; Ferguson, “Orgeonika,” Hesperia Sup 8 (1949): 130–31; Jones, Associations, 251–54.

IPriene 112 Honorary decree for A. Aemilius Sextus Zosimos Priene

post 84 B.C.

Connotation: sense unclear (text very fragmented) Col. 24, ll. 64–67: τῆς φιλοδο[ξίας – – ]σ̣ θαι [δὲ π]ρὸς τὴ[ν τ]ούτων κ̣ [οινων]ίαν [ – – ]․όµενον [τὴν µ]ετουσία[ν – ] τοι̣ς πανλυσιτελὲς καὶ κέρδος π̣ [ – ] κτλ.

IPriene 114 Honorary decree for A. Aemilius Sextus Zosimos Priene

post 84 B.C.

Connotation: possible reference of κοινωνία as an (athletic) association Col. 22, ll. 12–13: ἐπέδωκε τὸν ἑαυτοῦ [ζῆλον εἴς] τε τὴν τοῦ τόπου φι[λοδο]ξίαν καὶ εἰς τὴν τῶν ἀλιφοµένω[ν κοινω]νί̣α̣ ν κτλ. Trans.: he gave benevolently for the reputation of the place and for the association of the youths undergoing gymnastic training etc.

IGRR 3.409 (= SEG 19.835)

Honorary decree Pogla (Pisidia)

ca. A.D. I–II?

Connotation: possible reference of κοινωνία as an undetermined socio-political entity/community ll. 1–9: [Π]ό[πλι]ο[ν] Καίλ[ι]ον [Λ]ουκ[ιανὸν – ] ο [ – ἀγω]|νοθετήσαντα ἀγῶνα πεντ[αετηρικὸν σύν|τε] ἀνδριάσιν καὶ βραβείοις καὶ τειµη[θέντα Βʹ (?̄) (Bean: τειµή[µα]σ̣ [ιν]) |δ]εδωκότα διανοµὰς ἔτεσιν πολ[ιτείας]||βουλευταῖς τε καὶ ἐκλησιασταῖς [καὶ πᾶ]|σι πολείταις, κτίζοντα ἔργα τῇ πόλει, κρεί|νοντα τοπικὰ δικαστήρια ἔτεσιν κοινω|ν[ίας] (Bean: ἔτεσιν κ[οινωνίας]), πέµψαντα ἀννῶναν εἰς τὸ Ἀλεξαν|δρέων ἔθνος κτλ. Trans.: (in honour of) [Publius] Caelius Lucianus, who presided quinquennial games with both statues, prizes, and (financial) rewards (cf. Robert), who made distributions (of grain) by years of the city-constitution (?) to councillors, members of the assem-

390

Appendix

bly, and all the citizens, who built works for the city, who adjudicated in local courts by years of the league (?), who sent corn to the Alexandrian people, etc. Biblio.: ed. pr. Rostowzew, JÖAI 4 (1900): 37–46. Cf. AE 1902 (1903): 6, #18; Hirschfeld, Klio 2 (1902): 301 (n. 5); Reinach, REG 17 (1904): 258; Buckler, JHS 37 (1917): 97–98, 115 (κοινωνία as “a partnership of lessees” in an estate); Wilhelm, Glotta 14.1 (1925): 81–82 (κοινωνία as a “Kollekte als Zeichen der Teilnahme”); Broughton, TAPA 65 (1934): 229–30; Bean, AnSt 10 (1960): 59–61, #104 (follows Wilhelm); Robert, REG 74 (1961): 243–44, #747. See also Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 23 (follows Rostowzew); Peterman, JETS 50.4 (2007): 735–46 (κοινωνία as a political association). On Pogla in general (with a discussion of this inscription), see Levick, “Pogla,” PWSup 14: 413–27.

Appendix B

Κοινων- Cognates in Papyri B.1 Κοινωνέω (TM: Trismegistos number. Online: http://www.trismegistos.org/)

P.Rev. (TM: 8859) (= W.Chr. 258, col. 1–22; rev. ed. Bingen, SB Beiheft 1 [1952]: 1–47)

Revenue laws of Ptolemy II Philadelphus

Arsinoites?

259/8 B.C.

Connotation: to partner (in a tax-farming enterprise) Col. 21, l. 10 – col. 22, l. 3 (Bingen): ἔκκλητοι χρόνοι … ἔστω καλεῖσθαι ἔν \τε/ τῶι χ[ρόνωι] εἰς ὃν [αἱ] πρόσοδο[ι] πέπρανται καὶ ἐν ἄλληι τριµ[η]ν[ίαι] ἐὰµ µή τις τῶν τι κοινωνούντων ἢ ὑπηρετούντω[ν] τῆ[ι ὠ]νῆι λη[φθ]ῇ µετὰ τὸν γεγραµµένον χρόνον κτλ. Trans.: (col. 21, l. 10 – col. 22, l. 3) times for appeal… let him summon in the time for which revenues have been sold and in the other three months, unless one of the partners or supervisors (associated) with the tax-farming contract is found after the aforesaid time etc. Biblio.: Mayser, Grammatik, 1:446; Bagnall and Derow, Hellenistic Period, 181–95, #114. On the importance of P.Rev., see esp. Préaux, L’économie, 65–93; Bingen, Hellenistic Egypt, 157–88.

P.Brem. 11 (TM: 19596) (= C.Pap.Jud. II 444)

Private letter

Hermopolis

A.D. 117–118

Connotation: to share ll. 7–10: δι’ ἧς ἔγραψας ἐπιστολῆς [τ]ῶι τοῦ Λυκοπολείτου στρατηγῶι Σαραπίωνι περὶ τοῦ µὴ κοινωνεῖν ἡµᾶς σ[ο]ι ἡµίσους µέρους τοῦ ἄρακ[ο]ς κτλ. Trans.: the letter by which you wrote to Sarapion, the strategos of Lykopoleitos, about our not sharing with you half a portion of the arakos (i.e., leguminous plant; cf. LSJ, s.v. ἄρακος) etc.

392

Appendix

BGU III 969 (TM: 9419) Memorandum of a judge Arsinoites

A.D. 142

Connotation: to partner (in a business enterprise or liturgy) ll. 7–15: Ἀθηνόδωρος ῥήτ(ωρ) ὑπὲρ Πασίωνος εἶπ(εν) … ἀπηλλάγησαν µὲν οὖν οἱ ἀντίδικοι τῆς κτηνοτροφία[ς] ἧς ἐκοινώνουν τῷ τετελευτηκότι καὶ εἰς τὸν συνηγορούµενον κατήντηκεν ἡ κτηνοτ[ρ]οφία κτλ. Trans.: Athenadoros the advocate said on behalf of Pasion: “… so the defendants (were) released from the cattle-rearing (business/liturgy?), which they shared with the deceased, and the cattle-rearing fell to the plaintiff etc.” Biblio.: Llewelyn, NewDocs 8, 87–90, #5; Baumert, Koinonein, 71–72, 94 (misreferenced as BGU 919).

SB XVI 13008 (TM: 14694) (Duplicate: SB XVI 13009)

Lease in partnership

Arsinoites

A.D. 144

Connotation: to partner (in a lease for the cultivation of an estate) ll. 7–24: Βουλόµε[θα] κοινωνή[σ]ειν σο̣ ι ̣ ἕκασ̣ τ̣ ο̣ ς ̣ [ἡ]µῶν κ̣ α̣ τ̣ ὰ τ̣ὸ̣ τρ̣ ί̣τ̣ [ον µέρ]ο̣ ς ̣ πρὸς µ[όνους τοὺς ἐπικει]µ̣ έ̣ν̣ου̣ ς ̣ τ[οῦ ἐνεσ]τῶ[το]ς ̣ ζ ̣ (ἔτους) φοινι[κικο]ὺς καὶ ἐλαικοὺ̣[ς] καρποὺς ἐκ̣ π̣ ίπτοντας ε̣[ἰς τὸ] εἰσιὸν η (ἔτος) τῶν [π]άντων ἐλαί̣ν̣ ων φυτῶ[ν] καὶ φ̣ ̣οινίκων ἐν ᾗ τυγχάνις ἔχειν ἐν µισθώσι πω ̣ ̣ων ̣ ἀπάτῃ περὶ τὸ Ἔξω Ψεῦρ, ἡµῶν ἀποδιδούντων σὺν σὺ [σοὶ? Cf. Omar, p. 85] ̣ ̣ ̣κατὰ τὸ ἐπι̣βά£ον ἑκάστου ἡµῶν τρί[το]ν µερο〚υ〛{ο}ς τοῦ φόρου δ̣ [ρ]αχµῶν πεντήκοντα ἓξ ταῖς διὰ τοῦ ἀναφορίου σου προθεσµίαις ἀκολούθως κτλ. Trans.: we wish to partner with you, each one of us according to a third [share], in the harvest of dates and olives of the [present] 7th (year) [only], which are to become mature in the coming 8th (year), (which shall be produced) by all the palm trees and olive trees which you rent out … (?) by Exo Pseur. We (shall) pay to you (?), each according to our third share, our portion of the rent (being) fifty-six drachmas, in accordance with your appointed time for the payment etc. Biblio.: Omar, ZPE 50 (1983): 81–86.

P.Stras. V 362 (TM: 13286) Lease in partnership Euhemeria

A.D. 149–150

Connotation: to partner (in a lease for the cultivation of an estate) ll. 4–6: Βούλοµαι ἑκουσίω[ς] καὶ αὐθαιρ[έτ]ω[ς] κοινωνῆσ̣ α̣ ί̣ σοι κατὰ τὸ ἥµ[ισυ] µέρος ὧν κ[α]ὶ σὺ τυγχάνις µεµισθῶσ[θαι] κτλ. Trans.: I wish to partner with you voluntarily and of my own free will according to half a share of the lot which is for rent etc.

B.1: Κοινωνέω in Papyri

393

BGU XIX 2762 V (TM: 91671) Judicial proceedings Hermopolis

A.D. 152

Connotation: to participate? (sense unclear, papyrus very fragmented) ll. 19–23: Ἀπολλώνιος εἶπεν· οὐ πα̣ ̣ ̣[ – ca. ? – ] παραγράψαι τὴν αὐτὴν ε ̣ ̣ ̣ν̣ ε ̣[ – ca. ? – ] δεῖ κοινωνεῖν µόνους τοὺς ἐπιµε̣[λητὰς – ca. ? – ] ἀπεφηνάµην̣ [τ]ούτοις γράµµασι [ – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: Apollonios said: not (…?) register the same (…?) it is necessary that only the epimeletai participate (…?) I made known by these written statements (…?) etc. Trans. (Maehler): Apollonios sagte: Nicht … dieselbe … eintragen […] es ist nötig, dass allein die Steuereinnehmer sich beteiligen […] ich habe diesen schriftliche Anweisung gegeben […]

P.Col. VI 123 (TM: 14250) (= SB VI 9526)

Transcripts of imperial decisions Tebtynis?

A.D. 199–200

Connotation: to partner in a crime/to be an accomplice ll. 45–51: Ἰσιδώ̣ρῳ ∆είου. τὰ µὲ̣ν ὑπὸ Κόµ̣ωνος τετολµηµένα Φλουεϊος Πλαυδιανὸς ὁ κράτιστος ἔπαρχος τῶν στρατοπέδων καὶ οἰκεῖος ἡµῶν ἐξετάσι. πρὸς δὲ Ἀπίωνα τὸν τελώνην, εἰ µὴ κοινωνῖ τῶν ἐνκληµ̣[ά]των Κόµωνι, τὸν ἡγούµενον τοῦ [ἔ]θνους ἕξε̣ις δικα̣[σ]τήν. Trans.: To Isidoros, son of Dios. Concerning the audacious actions (carried out) by Komon, his Excellency, Fulvius Plautianus, the praefectus of the camps and member of our household, will conduct an investigation. As regards the tax-collector Apion, if he has no part in the accusations (brought) against Komon, you will have the governor of the province (i.e., prefect of Egypt) as judge. Note: for a commentary on this rescript by Septimius Severus and Caracalla, which was posted in the Stoa of the Gymnasium of Alexandria, see Westermann and Schiller, P.Col. VI 123, pp. 23, 81–88.

P.Oxy. XLIII 3117 (TM: 15996) Record of court proceedings Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 235

Connotation: to own something in common ll. 4–6: ∆ηµήτρ\ι̣/ος ῥ(ήτωρ) εἶ(πεν), καὶ χθὲς ὑπερέθετο, πῇ µὲν λέγων κοινωνῖν \αὐτῷ/ ὀρφανοὺς καὶ προσήκειν αὐτοὺς παρεῖναι το̣ ὺ̣\ς ̣/ µήτε δικαζοµένους µή̣τε ἐπιόντας κτλ. Trans. (ed. pr.): “Demetrius, advocate, said, ‘Yesterday too he applied for an adjournment, saying at one point that there were orphans in joint ownership with him and that it was proper that they should be present though no case is being brought against them and they are not taking legal action’.”

394

Appendix

P.Köln II 101 (TM: 21205) (= SB XII 11238)

Partnership contract Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 274–280

Connotation: to partner (in a business enterprise) ll. 7–15: ὁµολογοῦµεν ἐπικοινωνήσιν ἀλλήλοις εἰς ἐργασίαν βρυτανικῆς τέχνης ἐπ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ἕνα καὶ µῆνας ἓξ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐνεστώσ[η]ς ἡµέρας α̣ ´ τοῦ ὄντος µηνὸς Φαῶφι τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος ϛ (ἔτους), ἐφ’ ᾧτε ἡµᾶς ἀµφοτέρους τήν τε συνωνὴν πάντω(ν) (papyrus breaks off here). Note: the exact sense of βρυτανικός (= Βρετανικός?) remains unclear, though it probably refers to some metal. See Hagedorn, ZPE 13 (1974): 127–29; Kramer and Hagedorn, P.Köln II 101, pp. 163–64 (n. 9). Cf. LSJ, s.v. βρυτανικός. Trans.: we agree to partner together in a tin-working (?) trade for the period of one year and six months from the current first day of the month of Phaophi of the current sixth year, for which we both [shall share?] the purchase of all (primary materials?). Biblio.: Hagedorn, ZPE 13 (1974): 127–31; Jakab, Tyche 16 (2001): 73.

P.Oxy.Hels. 48 (TM: 26658) Private letter Oxyrhynchos

A.D. II–III

Connotation: to share? (context unclear) ll. 17–20: αὐτῶν οὖν ἐλθόντων κοινώνησον αὐτοῖς εἰς µέρος ἐµοὶ καὶ γράψον τινὶ θέλεις τὸ κερµάτιον µεταβαλῶµαι κτλ. Trans.: so when they (the dyers) come, share (?) my portion with them and write (to me) to whom you want (me) to remit the cash etc. Trans. (ed. pr.): “When they come, please deal with them on my behalf.” Biblio.: Migliardi, Vita, 166–67, #96.

P.Oxy. XXVII 2474 (TM: 30460) Roman will Oxyrhynchos

Late A.D. III

Connotation: to own something in common ll. 8–15: [ ̣]ου τὸ λοιπὸν ἥµισυ µέρος τῆς προκειµένη[ς οἰκίας – ca. 23 – καὶ τῆς] µικρᾶς οἰκίας λογιστήριον λεγοµένης … καὶ κοινωνοῦσ[α] κ̣ ατὰ τὰ λοιπὰ µέρη̣ [ – ca. 26 – τῇ δὲ Χαιρηµονίδι] κτλ. Trans.: the remaining half share of the aforesaid [house … and] of the little house called logisterion and … owned in common as to the remaing portions etc.

B.1: Κοινωνέω in Papyri

395

P.Lond. II 197 V (TM: 31212) (Description: P.Lond. II, p. xviii; Text: BL I, p. 251)

Private letter

Provenance?

A.D. III?

Connotation: to partner (in a business enterprise)? (context unclear) ll. 12–20: Γινώ̣[σ]κιν σε θέλο, ὅτι πάντα, ὅσα ἐχο, ξυλικὰ πέπ̣ ρ̣ ακα̣ , ἵνα µὴ ἐγ δευτέρο̣ [υ] σ̣ ο̣ ι ̣ κοινωνήσω, ὡς εἰδὼς τὴν ἀνάγκην προ̣ τρέψε (= προτρέψαι?) το̣ ὺ̣ς κοπεῖς ἐργά[ζε]σται ἐπ[ι] δὲ ἔλαβα τὴ[ν] τειµὴν αὐτῶν κτλ. Trans.: I want you to know that as much timber as I have, I have sold (it), so that I may not associate with you a second time, knowing the necessity to urge the cutters to work since they (?) received their pay etc.

P.Mert. II 91 (TM: 11939) (Duplicate of P.Cair.Isid. 74)

Petition to the strategos of Arsinoites Karanis

A.D. 316

Connotation: to partner (in a lease)? ll. 12–14: οἱ δὲ αὐθαδίᾳ χρεώµενοι ἀλόγως καὶ ῥιψοκι[ν]δ̣ ύνως παρὰ τοὺ̣ς ̣ νόµους µὴ ε̣ὐ̣λαβηθέντ̣αις ὀλίγον φόβον τοῦ ἐµοῦ δεσπ̣ ό̣του ἀπελθόντε̣ς ἄνευ τῆς ἐµῆ̣ς γνώµης πάντ̣ [ας] τὰς ἁλωνίας ἃ̣ς ἔχω ἅµα αὐτοῖς ἐπικοινων[ού]ν̣ των ἐβάσταξαν εἰς τὸ ἴδιον κτλ. Trans.: but they, wilfully and recklessly and without consideration for the laws, having little fear of my master, set out without my knowledge and carried away to their own (property) all the threshed grain which I own together with them with whom I have a partnership etc. Note: it is difficult to see what the genitive plural ἐπικοινωνούντων refers to in context (the grain that is owned in common? the two landlords with whom the plaintiff had formed a partnership?). Biblio.: Kehoe, Management, 162.

P.Ammon II 48 (TM: 100078) Draft of a sale contract for slaves Alexandria? Connotation: sense unclear (papyrus too fragmented) Frag. B, l. 13: [ – ca. ? – κο]ινωνεῖν κατὰ̣ [τ]ὰ̣ς [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ε̣ ̣[ – ca. ? – ]

A.D. 348

396

Appendix

P.Kell. I 15 (TM: 20280) Public declaration to the Praeses Thebaidos Kellis (Oasis Magna)

A.D. 357

Connotation: sense unclear (papyrus too fragmented) ll. 15–16: [ ̣]ου ἡ ἀπαίτ̣ [ησις ̣ ̣ γέ]νηται ο[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] κ̣ εκοινώ[ν]ηκα τοῖ[ς ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣σεις πρα[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]. τὸ καθόλου̣ κτλ.

BGU IV 1024 (TM: 64373) (Rev. ed. in Poethke et al., Aktenbuch)

Legal proceedings

Hermopolis

post A.D. 360

Connotation: to share in/to partake of something Frag. 5, ll. 18–19: ἀλλὰ ποιήσω κα[τ]ὰ τὴν Καππαδοκίαν ἁλόντι κοινώνησ̣ [ιν ἐλπ]ίδα κτλ. Poethke, Aktenbuch, p. 67: ἀλλὰ ποιήσω κα[τ]ὰ τὴν Καππαδοκία̣ ν ἁλόντι κοινωνήσ̣ [ειν ±2]ι̣δα κτλ. Trans.: but I will send (you) to Cappadocia to partake of (your) imprisonment (i.e., to serve your sentence) etc. Trans.: “Also werde ich dich nach Kappadokien schicken, um in Gefangenendasein Anteil zu haben an.” Biblio.: Keenan, APF 35 (1989): 15–23 (esp. p. 19).

P.Oxy. XLII 3086 (TM: 30344) Private letter Oxyrhynchos

A.D. III–IV

Connotation: to partner (in a business enterprise) ll. 1–7: Νεµεσιανὸς Κολλούθω τῷ φιλτάτῳ χαίρειν. ὁ Σύρος πρὸ πολλοῦ τὸ τάλαντον εἴληφε καὶ Νεῖλος ἔτι πάλαι (τάλ.) α (δρ.) ψ, καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς δὲ αὐτῷ µετεβαλόµεθα· µὴ οὖν τ̣α̣ρασσέτω πρὸς ἡµᾶς τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ ἀµέµ̣ π̣ τ̣ως ἡµῖν κοινωνο̣ ῦντα τὴν δὲ λοιπάδα οὐκ ἐν πολλῷ οὖσαν τοῖς λινούφοις τήρη̣ [σο]ν µηδὲν βλαπτόµενος·ἐν γὰρ τούτοις αἱ σπουδαὶ τῶν φίλων φαίνονται. Trans.: Nemesianos to Kollouthos, his dearest (friend), greetings. Syros received the talent long before and Neilos a talent and 700 drachmas long ago, and we paid the rest to him. So let him not stir up against us he who has been a blameless partner with us for such a (long?) time. Keep the rest, which is not much, for the linen-weavers, as it will do no harm. For (it is) in these circumstances (that) the earnestness of friends shows forth. Biblio.: Jakab, Tyche 16 (2001): 77–78; Jakab and Manthe, “Recht,” in Rechtskulturen (ed. Manthe), 305.

B.1: Κοινωνέω in Papyri

397

P.Gron. 17 (TM: 31942) Private letter Provenance?

A.D. III–IV

Connotation: to share (one’s mind/a conversation; cf. Endenburg, Koinoonia, 78–80). ll. 12–14: ἵνα ὁµιλίας ἢ καὶ γνώµης σοι περὶ τῶν κατὰ σὲ κοινωνήσωµεν κτλ. Trans.: so that we may have a conversation and also share (our) mind with you about these matters etc. Trans. (ed. pr.): “damit wir mit dir Rücksprache nehmen oder auch unsere Gedanken täuschen könnten über deine Angelegenheiten.” Biblio.: Naldini, Cristianesimo, 24.

P.Got. 12 (TM: 30694) Private letter Provenance?

A.D. III–IV

Connotation: to associate with someone (in the sense of interacting socially)? ll. 17–22: καὶ γράψατέ µοι 〚ἄτοπον γάρ µοι φαίνε̣[τ]α̣ ι ε〛 καὶ αἰσθέσθωσαν, ὅτι ἐνθάδε̣ ε̣ἰ̣µ̣ ὶ̣ [ἕν]εκεν ἑτέρων πραγµάτων κ[αὶ] οὐ κ[οι]νωνῶ πρός τινα, ἵνα ἀ̣µέριµ̣ [νο]ς ὦ, [ ̣ ̣]ν παρα̣ [καλ]ῶ δὲ ὑµᾶς α[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] κτλ. Trans.: and write to me ⟦for it seems strange to me⟧ and let them know that I am here on account of other matters and (that) I do not associate with anyone, so that (I may be) care-free … (?) and I urge you etc.

P.Oxy. X 1280 (TM: 33635) Lease in partnership Oxyrhynchos

A.D. IV

Connotation: to partner (in a lease) ll. 4–12: ὁµολογῶ ἑκουσίᾳ καὶ αὐθαιρέτῳ γνώµῃ συντεθῖσθαί µε πρὸς σὲ ἐπὶ τῷ µαι ἐπικοινωνῖν σοι εἰς τὸν ψυκτῆρα τοῦ καµηλῶνος οὗ ἐµισθώσου σοὶ (i.e., σὺ) ὁ Ἀµµωνιανὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ παρελθόντος µηνὸς Παχὼν ἀρχῇ τῆς δωδεκάτης ἰνδ(ικτίονος) καὶ παρασχῖν σοι ὑπὲρ ἐνοικίου ἐνιαυσίως ἀργυρίου µυριάδας χιλίας κτλ. Trans.: 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, which you Ammonianos have leased since the past month of Pachon at the beginning of the twelfth indictio, and to pay you for the annual rent one thousand myriads of silver etc. Biblio.: Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 64; Steinwenter, “Gesellschaftsrechte,” in Studi Riccobono (ed. Riccobono), 499–500; Wolff, JJP 1 (1946): 77; Montevecchi, La papirologia, 225. Cf. LSJ, s.v. ἐπικοινωνέω 3.

398

Appendix

PSI XV 1562 (TM: 34285) Business letter Provenance?

A.D. IV

Connotation: sense unclear l. 21: [ – ca. ? – ]ς ὕβριν κοινωνήσω̣ .

P.Oxy. IX 1223 (TM: 21597) (= Sel.Pap. I 164)

Private letter

Oxyrhynchites

Late A.D. IV

Connotation: to share in something ll. 17–20: ἐὰν δὲ ἀµελήσῃς, ὁ οἶκος ἡµῶν περιστάσι κοινωνεῖν µέλλει διὰ τὴν ἀπουσίαν τοῦ γεούχου κτλ. Trans.: if you are negligent, our house is likely to share in difficulties due to the absence of the landowner etc. Biblio.: Baumert, Koinonein, 58, 94–95.

P.Lond. V 1794 (TM: 19767) Partnership contract Hermopolis

A.D. 487

Connotation: to partner (in a fruit-dealing trade) ll. 7–16: ὁµολογοῦµεν ἑτοί̣µως ἔχε[ι]ν κοινωνεῖν ἀ£ήλοις ε̣[ἰ]ς τὴν προειρηµένην τεχνὴν ὠ̣πωρώνην (= ὀπωροπώλης; cf. LSJ, s.v. ὀπωρώνης; Bell, P.Lond. V 1794, p. 251) [π]ρὸς ἐνιαυσιαῖον χρόνον λογιζό̣ ̣µενον … ἐπ̣ ὶ̣ κοινῷ λήµ̣ µ̣ ατι καὶ ἀναλώµ̣ [α]τ̣ ι καὶ ο̣ ὕ̣τ̣ω ἡµᾶς πα̣ ρ̣ α̣ σ χεῖν κ[ο]ι̣νῶς τα ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ια ἀν̣ α̣ λώµατα τῆς αὐτῆς τεχνῆ̣ς ̣ κ̣ [αὶ] µ̣ ε̣τ̣ὰ τὴ[ν ἀπόδο]σ̣ [ιν?] τῶν φόρ[ω]ν καὶ τῶν ἀναλω̣ µάτων̣ [ – ca. 9 – ]α̣ σ τω̣ ν̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ησο ̣ε ̣ ̣ κτλ. Trans.: 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 (…?) etc. Biblio.: Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 74–75; Montevecchi, La papirologia, 225; Jakab, Tyche 16 (2001): 75; Jakab and Manthe, “Recht,” in Rechtskulturen (ed. Manthe), 304; Baumert, Koinonein, 94, 128.

B.1: Κοινωνέω in Papyri

399

SB XIV 11957 (TM: 34797) Royal letter Primis (Ethiopia)

A.D. V

Connotation: to have something in common? ll. 9–11: καθὼς ἔ̣γ̣ ρ̣ [α]ψ̣ εν µοι ὅτι, θέλω ὁµόνοιαν̣ ἔχω̣ τες µεταξὺ ἀλλήλους κοινονοῦµεν τὰ βοΐδιά µου µετὰ βοΐδια σου, βώσκων µετὰ ἀ£ή̣λ̣ο̣ υ̣ ς ̣ καὶ τὰ πρόβατα, πάνυ φιλῆσαι κτλ. Τrans. (Skeat): “As (your Valiancy) wrote to me that ‘I desire that we being of one mind between each other should hold in common my cattle with your cattle, pasturing (them) with each other, and treat (our) sheep with all kindness’.” Note: the grammar of this letter is particularly chaotic and left Skeat unsure of his translation. Biblio.: Skeat, JEA 63 (1977): 159–70.

P.Jena II 29 (TM: 128710) Business letter Hermopolites?

A.D. V–VI

Connotation: sense unclear (papyrus too fragmented) ll. 1–3: [π(αρὰ) Φοιβάµµω(?)]ν̣ ος ̣ λαµπρο̣ (τάτου) [ – ca. ? – ] ̣παρασ̣ κεύασον τοὺς ὀφείλοντας κοινωνῆσαι [ – ca. ? – ]ε τοῦ ἐµ̣ πρησ̣ µοῦ Ἀ̣ν̣θ̣ ίµ̣ ου Βίκτορο〚υ〛ς καθα ̣

P.Oxy. XVI 1893 (TM: 22028) Ship-building contract Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 535

Connotation: to own something in common? ll. 8–17: ἐπειδὴ ἤρησα ὑµῖν πρὸς ἐργασίαν τῆς τέχνης τῶν ναυπηγῶν … καὶ µ[ετὰ τὸ] τὸ [π]ᾶ̣ν π̣ λ̣ ο̣ ῖ̣[ο]ν̣ ἐ̣τ̣ έ̣λ̣ εσ̣ τ[α]ι, κοινωνῆσ[αι ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]υ̣ ἐπίσ̣ τω ̣[ – ca. ? – ] (papyrus breaks off here) Trans.: since I joined with you in the work of ship-building … and after the entire ship is completed to own in partnership (?) … (?) Biblio.: Montevecchi, Contratti, 65–67; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 393 (n. 23).

P.Lond. V 1660 (TM: 19677) Tax-farming partnership contract Antaiopolites

ca. A.D. 553

Connotation: to partner (in a tax-farming enterprise) ll. 16–19: εἰ δὲ συµβαίη ὑπολιπέσθαι οἷον τι παντελῶς µετὰ τὴν ἀπ̣ ο̣ π̣λ̣ή̣ρω̣ σιν τῶν ὡς εἴρηται δηµοσίων τε καὶ ἑτέρων κεφαλαίων καὶ δαπανηµάτων καθὰ προεῖπον ἐπὶ τ̣ῷ̣ ἐ[ν πᾶσ]ι̣ κοινωνεῖν καὶ συµµετέχειν σοι εἰς τὸ ἐπιβάλλον σοι µέρος κατὰ τὸ ἥµισυ κτλ.

400

Appendix

Trans.: if there results at all something to be left after the full payment of the aforementioned public dues, other capital sums, and expenses, (it shall be) according to what was declared with regards to the associating and partnering in [everything?] with you, to the extent of half a share of what falls to you etc. Biblio.: Baumert, Koinonein, 94, 290 (mis-referenced on p. 94 as PLond 166)

P.Cair.Masp. III 67352 (TM: 36565) (Rev. ed. Fournet, “P.Cair.Masp. III 67352.”)

Petition draft

Antinoopolis

ca. A.D. 548/549 or 551

Connotation: to partner with someone (in a trade) ll. 25–30 (Fournet): Ἐ̣ξαιτῶ δ̣ ὲ̣ καὶ τοῦτο, τὸ̣ κράτο̣ ς ὑµῶ̣ν θεσπίζαι µοι τὴ̣ν ̣ ̣[ – ca. 9 – ] τέχνην τ̣οῦ̣ δ̣ η µ̣ ο̣ [σ]ί̣ου σίτου τῆς αἰσίας ἐµβολῆς τοῦ νοµοῦ Ἑρµοπ̣ [ο]λ[(ίτου)] τῆς ἐ̣µῆς ̣ πατρίδ[ο]ς ̣ ὅ̣π̣ ως εὕρω µετὰ τῶν ἐµῶν τέκνων τοῖς [τὴ]ν̣ τοιαύτην̣ [τέ]χ̣ ν̣ η̣ ν ἐγχειρουµένοις ἐπικοινωνεῖν \ἀεὶ/ καὶ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ε̣τ̣ ε ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ τὸ\ν/ ἀ̣φ̣ ικνούµενον µισθὸν τοῦ ταύτης κό̣π̣ [ ου] [ . …] κτλ. Trans.: and I also ask this, Your Majesty, (that you) decree … (?) trade of public grain of the just annona of the nome of Hermopolite, my fatherland, so that I, together with my children, may always associate with those undertaking such a trade and … (?) the accrued salary for this labour (?) etc. Biblio.: Fournet, “P.Cair.Masp. III 67352,” in Proceedings 25th (ed. Gagos), 243–50.

B.1.1 Κοινωνέω – Doubtful Reading P.Oxy. XII 1408 (TM: 21818) Report of a trial Oxyrhynchos?

A.D. 212–214

Connotation: to participate (in criminal activities) ll. 25–26: [εἰσὶ] δ̣ ὲ ὑποδεχοµένων πολλοὶ τρόποι· οἱ µὲν γὰρ κοινων̣[οῦντες τῶν ἀδικη]µάτων ὑποδέχονται, οἱ δὲ οὐ µετέχοντες µέν κα[ ̣ ̣] (papyrus breaks off here) Trans.: and there (are) many ways of harbouring (bandits): some give them shelter by taking part in their offences, but others by not associating … (?) Biblio.: Johnson, Roman Statutes, #280, 227–28; Westermann, Slave Systems, 131; Baumert, Koinonein, 94.

B.1: Κοινωνέω in Papyri

401

P.Sakaon 42 (TM: 13061) (= P.Thead. 20)

Petition

Theadelphia

ca. A.D. 323

Connotation: to share/take part (in something)? ll. 13–18: ἀξιοῦµεν τοίνυν τὴν σὴν ἀνδρίαν εὐεργε[τῆσαι ἡ]µᾶ̣ς κα[τ]ὰ τοὺς νόµους καὶ τὰς κελεύσις, ἡ̣γ̣ εµών, [σοῦ καὶ] ἄ[λ]λων ἀρχόντων, τὰς ἀσθενεστέρας κώµα̣ [ς] [ταῖς [εὐ]ποθ̣µ[ο]ύσαις κώµαις συνάπτεσθαι, καὶ ἡµᾶς [κοινωνη]θῆναι τοὺς ̣ µ̣ ερισµοὺς τῇ εὐποθµούση κώµ[ῃ] [τοῦ πεδί]ου, λέγοµεν τῇ Ἑρµουπόλει κτλ. Trans.: We deem it fit, therefore, that your nobility be benevolent towards us according to the laws and the edicts, my Lord, (promulgated) by yourself and by other governors, (which stipulate) that the poorer villages be joined to those well-off, and that we [be made to take part?] of the lots of the village of the plain that is well-supplied, namely, Hermopolis, etc. Trans. (Parassoglou, P.Sakaon 42): “… which provide that the poorer villages be attached to the richer ones, we too share our imposts with the rich village of the plain”.

P.Ammon I 3 (TM: 23631) (= P.Congr. XV 22)

Private letter

Panopolis

A.D. 348

Connotation: to partner (in some enterprise)? Frag. 5, ll. 21–26: πολ̣ υ̣ πρ[α]γµόνε̣ι ̣ ο̣ ὖν περ[ὶ τῶ]ν φόρων κ̣ [αὶ] π̣ έ̣µψον ἐκεῖ τ̣ [ιν]α̣ ἐ̣π̣ ισκέψ̣ α̣ σθαι·καὶ τ̣ [ο]ὺ̣ς ̣ [κ]ο̣ ινωνούς µου̣ [ἤ]δ̣ η µετάπ̣ ε ̣µ̣ [ψα]ι Πολυκράτη τ̣ ε ̣ κ̣ [αὶ] τ̣ὸ̣ν̣ προστά[τη]ν̣ [ὡς] ὑποµνησο̣ [µένο]υ̣ ς ̣ καὶ πε̣ρ̣[ὶ τ]ο̣ ῦ ἡµετέρου … [γρ]άψω δὲ ἤδη [χει]ρ̣ὶ̣ ἰδίαι τοῖς φ[ίλοις ἵνα ἡµῖν κοι]νωνῶ̣[σ]ι̣ περὶ τού[τ]ου. ἐ̣[πεὶ] ἤδη καὶ̣ ὁ και̣[ρὸ]ς ̣ τ̣ ῆ ς συγκοµιδ̣ ῆ [ς – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: So busy yourself about the payments and send someone there to investigate. And send now for my partners Polykrates and the prostates, [that] they may remember about our (…?) … I shall write now of my own hand to my [friends? that they may] associate (?) [with us?] in this (matter). Since now is the time of the harvest etc.

402

Appendix

B.2 Κοινωνός P.Rev. (TM: 8859) (= W.Chr. 258, col. 1–22; rev. ed. Bingen, SB Beiheft 1 [1952]: 1–47)

Revenue laws of Ptolemy II Philadelphus

259/8 B.C.

Arsinoites? Connotation: associate tax-collector

Col. 10, ll. 1–6 (Bingen): φυλακὴν δὲ τῶν ἐφ[όδω]ν καὶ τῶν λογευτῶν καὶ τῶν συµβολοφυλ[άκ]ων καὶ̣ τῶν ἄ¶ο τι πραγµατ[ευο]µένων περὶ τὴν ὠνὴν καὶ ἐξέτασ̣ [ιν τῆς γινο]µένης προσόδου τῆι ὠνῆι [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ὁ ἀρχώνη]ς καὶ οἱ κοινῶνες ὡς ἀνυπο[ – ca. 12 – ]ν µηθὲν ἄνευ τῶν ἀντι[γραφέων] κτλ. Col. 17, l. 17 – col. 18, l. 5: τῶν δὲ διαλογισµῶν, οὓς ἂ̣[ν ποιή]σηται ὁ οἰκονόµ̣ ος πρὸς τ[ο]ὺς τὰς ὠνὰς ἔχοντας, πάντων ἀντίγραφα ἑκάστω[ι] τῶν κοινών[ω]ν παραχρῆµα δότω σφραγισάµενος αὐτός κτλ. Trans.: (col. 10, ll. 1–6) (they shall appoint) … a guard for the inspectors, the collectors, the keepers of vouchers, and for all others involved in some way with the (taxfarming) lease, and the examination of the revenue of the (tax-farming) lease … [the chief tax-collector?] and his associates … (?) nothing (be done?) without copies (?) etc. (col. 17, l. 17 – col. 18, l. 5) concerning the balancing of accounts, which the oikonomos will do with the tax-farmers, let him give at once sealed copies to each of all the associates etc. Biblio.: Mayser, Grammatik, 1:446; Bagnall and Derow, Hellenistic Period, 181–95, #114. On the importance of P.Rev., see esp. Préaux, L’économie, 65–93; Bingen, Hellenistic Egypt, 157–88.

BGU IV 1123 (TM: 18565) Lease agreement Alexandria

30 B.C. –A.D. 14

Connotation: lease partner ll. 4–5: ὁµολογοῦµεν εἶναι τοὺς τρεῖς µε[τό]χ̣ους καὶ κοινωνοὺς καὶ κυρίους ἕκαστον κατὰ τὸ τρίτον µέρος ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν εἰς τὸν ἀε̣ὶ̣ χ̣ ρ̣ό̣νον τῆς προκειµένης µισθώσε[ως – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: we three agree to be partners, associates, and trustees, of the aforesaid lease, each according to a third share, from now on and for all time etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815; MM, s.v. κοινωνός, 351; BDAG, s.v. κοινωνός 1; Kreller, Erbrechtliche 1, 82 (n. 4); San Nicolò, Vereinswesen 1:150–52; Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 66–67; Steinwenter, “Gesellschaftsrechte,” in Studi Riccobono (ed. Riccobono), 489 (n. 13), 496 (n. 41); Herrmann, Bodenpacht, 218; Arzt-Grabner, “Onesimus,” in Philemon (ed. Tolmie), 136.

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

403

P.Mich. V 354 (TM: 12165) Guarantee of immunity Tebtynis

A.D. 52

Connotation: co-owner ll. 17–24: καὶ παρέξωµαι ἡµᾶς τόν δαι (= τε) Κρονία καὶ τὸν Παῦσειν ἀπαιρεισπάστους καὶ ἀνεισπράκτους καὶ ἀπαρανοχλήτους κατὰ πάντα τρόπον διὰ τὸ τοὺς τοῦ Τεισένξεως υἱοὺς ἀφανεῖς εἶναι, εἴσους αὐτῶι κονωνούς, ὠφειλόντων αὐτῶν πλῖστα δηµώσεια. Trans.: And I shall render you, both Kronion and Pausis, free from hindrance, liability, and impairment, in every way, for the sons of Tisenxsis, who were equal partners in this (property), have disappeared, since they owe much to the public treasury.

SB XXIV 15920 (TM: 25460) (= P.Flor. III 388)

Account

Hermopolis

A.D. 87/103?

Connotation: associate in an undetermined business l. 105: µετόχ(ου) Ἀρείο(υ) σιτοµ(έτρου) \κοινω(νῶν)/ κτλ. ll. 126–127: λόγος Παῆσις Σιφώνιος Θὼτ ε κοινω(νῶν) ἡµῶν κα(ὶ) Ἀρείου ἄνδ(ρες) ϛ ὀβ(ολοὶ) κδ κτλ. Trans.: (l. 105) from the partners of Areios, the sitometres, and his associates etc. (ll. 126–127) account of Paesis, son of Siphonis, Thot 5, from our associates and of Areios, 6 men, 24 obols etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:816; Arzt-Grabner, “Onesimus,” in Philemon (ed. Tolmie), 136.

SB XII 11007 (TM: 4383) Receipt (for a partial repayment) Provenance?

A.D. I

Connotation: business partner (in wine trade?) ll. 1–3: Νικηφόρος ὁ παρὰ Ἀλεξάνδρου Πασοκνοπαίωι κοι(νωνῷ) Ἁρφαῆσι χαίρειν· ἔχω παρὰ σοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς τιµῆς τοῦ οἴνου ἀρτάβας τέσσαρες κτλ. Trans.: Nikephoros, agent of Alexander, to Pasoknopaios, associate of Harphaesis, greetings. I have (received) from you four artabas for the price of the wine etc. Biblio.: Hanson, ZPE 9 (1972): 227–29; Arzt-Grabner, “Onesimus,” in Philemon (ed. Tolmie), 136.

404

Appendix

BGU II 530 (TM: 25647) (= C.Pap.Hengstl 1)

Private letter

Arsinoite

A.D. I

Connotation: lease partner? co-owner? ll. 14–24: Ὁ κοινωνὸς ἡµῶν οὐ συνηργάσατο, ἀ£ ’ οὐδὲ µὴν τὸ ὕδρευµα ἀνεψήσθη, ἄ¶ ως τε καὶ ὁ ὑδραγωγὸς συνεχώσθη ὑπὸ τῆς ἄµµου καὶ τὸ κτῆµα ἀγεώργητόν ἐστιν. Οὐδεὶς τῶν γεωργῶν ἠθέλησεν γεωργεῖν αὐτό κτλ. Trans.: our partner did not work with us, and the cistern has not been cleaned, and besides the irrigation channel is clogged by sand, and the property (left) uncultivated. None of the farmers was willing to cultivate it etc. Biblio.: MM, s.v. κοινωνός, 351; Preisigke, WB 1:816; Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 73; Johnson, Roman Egypt, 207–208, #107; Milligan, Selections, 60–63, #22; Kloppenborg, Tenants, 488–90; Arzt-Grabner, “Onesimus,” in Philemon (ed. Tolmie), 136.

P.Oxy. XLIX 3468 (TM: 24962) Petition Oxyrhynchos

A.D. I

Connotation: co-owner ll. 10–17: ν[ῦ]ν̣ δὲ ὁ Ἁρσιῆσ[ι]ς, ἐπο̣ φθαλµιάσας τῷ ὑπά̣ρ̣ χοντί µοι µέρει οἰκίας, ἧς ἐστιν κοινωνός µου, ἐτόλµη̣ σεν ἐπιτελέσαι κατ’ αὐτοῦ γρά̣µµατα ἐνεχυρασίας βουλόµ̣ [ε]ν̣ ος ἐπικρατῆσαι µέ[ρο]υς οἰκ̣ [ίας] ἀ̣ξίου̣ ἐπὶ τὸ \ἧ/σσον ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχµῶν) Β κτλ. Trans.: and now, coveting my share of the house, of which he is a joint-owner with me, Harsiesis dared to draft a bill of distraint for it, wanting to take hold of a share of the house worth at least 2,000 drachmas etc. Note: on the significance of ἐνεχυρασία, see Taubenschlag, LGRE, 533–37. Biblio.: Migliardi, Vita, 122–23, #67; Arzt-Grabner, “Onesimus,” in Philemon (ed. Tolmie), 137.

O.Bodl. II 1077 (TM: 71764) Payment order Thebes Connotation: associate tax-collector ll. 1–2: Παµώνθης Ὥρῳ καὶ µ(έτοχοις) τελώ(ναις) κοινώ(νοις) χ(αίρειν) κτλ. Trans.: Pamonthes to Horos and his associate telonai, greetings etc. Biblio.: Arzt-Grabner, “Onesimus,” in Philemon (ed. Tolmie), 136.

A.D. I–II

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

405

P.Stras. I 23 (TM: 25433) Tax register Hermopolis

A.D. I–II?

Connotation: co-owner? business associate? (cf. ed. pr., p. 96: “κοινωνοί sind Gesellschafter, Geschäftsteilnehmer”) l. 78: Ὡρίων ὁ καὶ Παράδει[σο]ς ̣ καὶ κοιν̣(ωνοὶ) διὰ [ – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: Horion also known as Paradeisos and associates through … (?) etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:816; Arzt-Grabner, “Onesimus,” in Philemon (ed. Tolmie), 136.

P.Oxy. XXII 2342 (TM: 22214) Petition to the Prefect of Egypt Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 102

Connotation: business partner (in wine trade) ll. 3–7: τῶ[ι] β (ἔτει) Τραιανοῦ Καίσαρος τοῦ κυρίου Πασίων Σαραπίωνος κοινωνὸς καὶ δανειστὴς ὢν τελευτήσας ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ ἀποκηρύξας τὰ τέκνα ἐπὶ καταγνώσει διάδοχον ἔσχε τὴν γυναῖκα Βερενείκην κτλ. Trans.: In the second year of the Lord Trajanus Caesar, my partner and creditor Pasion, son of Sarapion, died in Alexandria. Having renounced his children in disapproval, he made his wife Berenike his successor etc. Biblio.: Taubenschlag, LGRE, 392 (n. 16); Groningen, CE 32 (1957): 348–51; Jakab, Tyche 16 (2001): 63–85; Minnen, “Berenice,” in Two-Faces (eds. Verhoogt and Vleeming), 59–70; Burnet, L’Égypte, 227–29, #158; Arzt-Grabner, “Onesimus,” in Philemon (ed. Tolmie), 137.

P.Bad. II 19B (TM: 19316) Private letter Hermopolites

A.D. 110

Connotation: estate associate ll. 18–33: ∆ίδυµος Ἀπο£̣ ωνίου Ἀ£ίωνι Ἀπο£ωνίου συνκοινωνῷ χα(ίρειν). ἐξεδαπάνησας (Hagedorn: ἐπ̣ ε ̣ὶ̣ ἐδαπάνησας) εἰς τὴν κοινὴν ἡµῶν γεωργία̣ ν ὑπ(ὲρ) µέρους τοῦ ἐπιβά£οντος ἐµου ἐκ τοῦ οὐσι̣α̣ κοῦ γεωργ̣ [ί]ου ἐν Τωπάῃ Κάτω (H.: ἐν τῷ Πατρ̣ῆ Κάτω) λεγοµένῃ λιβικῆς (H.: Λιβια̣ ν̣ ῆς] … ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχµὰς) τριακοσ̣ ίας ἑξ ή̣ κον\τ/(α) δύο τριώβο\λ/(ον) (γίνονται) (δραχµαὶ) τξβ. Ὁµολογῶ ταύτας διαγράφειν (H.: διαγράψειν) ὑπ(ὲρ) σοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν δηµοσίαν τράπ(εζαν) ἕως πεντεκαιδεκάτης τοῦ Τῦβι ἀνυπερθέτως καὶ ἐποίσω σοι σύµβο\λ/(ον) ὑπ(ὲρ) φόρου λιναίου Ἐποι (H.: Λη̣ ναίου ἐποικ̣ [ίου]) κτλ. Trans.: Didymos, son of Apollonios, to Allion, son of Apollonios, his partner, greetings. Since you spent for our common work over the portion befalling me of the estate in Patre Kato which is called Libiane … three hundred silver drachmas and sixty-two triobolons, that is, 362. I agree to pay these for you to the public treasury by the fif-

406

Appendix

teen of the month of Tybi immediately, and I will make a receipt for you for the levy of the village of Lenaios etc. Biblio.: Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 70–71 (referenced as Heid. 19b); Hagedorn, ZPE 117 (1997): 185–86.

SB XVIII 13134 (TM: 14718) Letter of a sitologos Talithis (Arsinoites)

A.D. 111–112

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 5–6: [σιτο]λόγος κώµη(ς) Ταλεὶ Ἡρακλείδῃ κοινωνῷ χαίρειν·κτλ. Trans.: the sitologos of the village of Talithis, to Herakleides, his partner, greetings. Etc. Biblio.: Arzt-Grabner, “Onesimus,” in Philemon (ed. Tolmie), 136. On the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

P.Fam.Tebt. 23 (TM: 10741) (= P.Hamb. I 62)

Registration of sale of catoecic land Tebtynis

A.D. 123

Connotation: co-owner ll. 1–4: ὁµολογεῖ ∆ιδύµηι Λυσιµάχου … παρακεχωρηκέναι αὐτῶι Λυσιµάχωι … ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπαρχοντῶν αὐτῆι ∆ιδύµηι … καὶ ἐπικεκληκότων αὐτῆι ἐγ διαιρέσεως, ἧς ἀνήνεγκεν πρὸς γ κοινωνοὺς τῷ γ (ἔτει) Ἁδριανοῦ Καίσαρος τοῦ κυρίου κτλ. Trans.: Didyme, daughter of Lysimachos … acknowledges to have ceded to Lysimachos … from the property (belonging) to herself, Didyme, … , and assigned to her by (a deed) of division, which she drafted with three co-owners in the third year of the Lord Hadrian Caesar etc. Note: the three co-owners mentioned are family members presumably, perhaps the three sons of the Apollonios mentioned l. 10. Cf. Meyer, P.Hamb. I 62, p. 216 (n.1); van Groningen, P.Fam.Tebt. 23, p. 84 (n. 4).

P.Fam.Tebt. 24 (TM: 10742) (Duplicate of SB IV 7404)

Report of a trial with annexed documents Tebtynis

A.D. 124

Connotation: sense unclear (papyrus very fragmented in ll. 10–25) ll. 11–12: πατρὸς Ἁρποκρατίω\νο̣ (ς)/ [καὶ Ἀκουσιλάου – ca. ? – τεταγµένω ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ δε κοινωνόν – ca. ? – ]του Ἡρακλείδ( ) [τὸ]ν πατ̣ έρα κτλ. Note: the reading is restored from the duplicate version SB IV 7404

407

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

SB XXII 15850 (TM: 41628) Tax receipt Philadelphia

A.D. 126?

Connotation: sense unclear (papyrus very fragmented in ll. 5–6) ll. 5–6: [ – ca. 10 – ] ̣ ̣ κ̣ α̣ ὶ̣ Ησ[ ̣ ̣ ̣]ς κοινων̣ [ο]ί̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ – ca. 10 – ] µ̣ ετ̣ὰ κ̣ υ̣ ρίου τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ̣ Ὥ̣ρ̣ου.

BGU III 976 (TM: 20096) Account of deliveries into a θησαυρός Mendes

A.D. 131–152

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector)? ll. 1–3: σιτο[λόγ ?] ἀ[νη]ρπάσθαι [ – ca. ? – ]µειωνατου κοινωνῶν ἀνα[ – ca. ? – ἀπὸ] γενήµατος ιε (= ἔτους) [ – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: seized by the sitologoi (?) (…?) associates (…?) from the produce of year 15 etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:816.

P.Flor. III 370 (TM: 19386) Partnership contract Hermopolis

A.D. 132

Connotation: lease partner ll. 1–5: Τίτος Φλαύϊος Σαραπίων Πουπλίῳ Αἰλίῳ Ἀπολλωνίῳ χα(ίρειν). [Ὁ]µολογῶ ἔσασθαί σοι κοινωνὸς κατὰ τὸ ἥµισυ µέρος γεωργίας τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος ἑπτακαιδεκάτου (ἔτους) Ἁδρι[α]νοῦ κ(αί)σαρος τοῦ κυρίου κτλ. ll. 13–18: ἐπὶ τό µε τελέσαι τοῦ ἐνελκουµένου σοι φόρου ἢ ἐνελκουσθησοµέν̣ου τὸ ἥµισυ, ἐµοῦ κ̣ ατ’ ἴσον σοι [π]άσας τὰς δαπάνας κ(αὶ) σπέρµατα κ(αὶ) ἔργα κ(αὶ) 〚α〛 τὰ ἄ¶ α πάντα ἀνεµποδίστως ποιησοµένου κατὰ τὸ ἥµισυ. 〚(ἔτους) ι〛 ἡ κοινωνία κυρία. Trans.: (ll. 1–5) Titus Flavius Sarapion to Publius Aelius Apollonios, greetings. I agree to be your partner for (the cultivation of) a half share of (arable) land for the current seventeenth year of Imperator Caesar Hadrian etc. (ll. 13–18) (I agree) to pay to you half of all of the tribute that is imposed or shall be imposed, sharing with you equally all expenditures, seeds, labour, and all other (costs), without hindrance. The partnership (is) effective. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815; San Nicolò, Vereinswesen 1:150–51 (classified as P.Gentilli 3); Herrmann, Bodenpacht, 218, 220; Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 65, 67–68; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 392 (n. 17); Baumert, Koinonein, 258; Arzt-Grabner, “Onesimus,” in Philemon (ed. Tolmie), 136.

408

Appendix

SB XX 14306 (TM: 14859) List of tax payment Theadelphia

A.D. 137–142

Connotation: associate tax-collector? ll. 10–11: δ [(ὀβολὸς)] (ἡµιωβέλιον) vac. ? διὰ τῶν κ̣ [οιν]ωνῶν κτλ. Trans.: 3 [obols?] and a half vac. through the associates etc.

P.Aberd. 45 (TM: 10003) Application for the concession of a monopoly Soknopaiou Nesos

A.D. 141

Connotation: associate tax-farmer ll. 18–19: Οὐκ ἔξεσται δέ µοι ἔχειν κοινω̣ ν̣ὸν οὐ[δὲ] µίσ̣ θιον γενόµενον ὑποτελῆ κτλ. Trans.: and it is not permitted for me to have a partner or a hired worker liable (for this concession) etc.

P.Hamb. I 69 (TM: 21051) Receipt and discharge for a tax collector Provenance?

A.D. 146

Connotation: associate tax-collector ll. 1–10: [Ἥρ]ων ὁ καὶ Σαραπίων̣ καὶ Ἡρακλ[εί]δης [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ος καὶ Ἡρακλείδης Ἡρα[κλεί]δ̣ ου ἐγλήµτορες ̣ ̣ ̣ρος µέ[τρο]υ φοινικηγοῦ Ὥρῳ Ἡρα[κλείδου] κοινωνῷ ἡµῶν̣ χαίριν. [Ἀπέχο]µεν̣ παρὰ σοῦ τὰς δαπάνας [καὶ τ]ὰ ὀψώνια τοῦ ἐνάτου ἔτους [Ἀντ]ω̣ νίνου Καίσαρος τοῦ κυρίου [καὶ οὐ]δ̣ έν σ[ο]ι ἐνκ̣ αλοῦµεν πε[ρὶ τ]οῦ αὐτοῦ ἐνάτου ἔτους κτλ. Trans.: Heron, also called Sarapion, and Herakleides (son of …?) and Herakleides, son of Herakleides, collectors … ros (?) of the date-fruit measures (ed. pr.: “Steuerpächter der ‘mit dem Dattelpalmmaß’ gemessenen Früchte”), to Horos, son of Herakleides, our partner, greetings. We have received from you the expenses and the salaries for the ninth year of the Lord Antoninus Caesar, and we have no charge against you for this ninth year etc. Biblio.: Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 71.

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

409

P.Par. 17 (TM: 23605) (= Pap.Eleph.Eng. D14)

Sale contract

Elephantine

A.D. 153

Connotation: associate tax-collector ll. 22–24: (hand 4) Ἑρµογένης Καικιλίου µισθωτὴς εἴδους ἐγκυκλίου καὶ ὑποκειµένων βασιλικῇ γραµµατείᾳ [κα]ὶ Ἀµµώνιος Σωκράτους κληρονόµος τοῦ µετηλλαχότος αὐτοῦ πατρὸς, κοινωνοῦ µου γεναµένου, [Θιν]σεµπῶτι Σαραπίωνος χ[αίρειν]. Trans.: Hermogenes, son of Caecilius, tax-farmer of payments in kind, sales, and matters subjected to the royal office, [and] Ammonios, son of Sokrates, heir of his deceased father, who has become my partner, to Thinsenpos, son of Serapion, [greetings]. Biblio.: Wilcken, Ostraka, 591; Preisigke, WB 1:816; Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 71.

P.Bodl. I 34 (TM: 10261) (= SB XVI 16537)

Application for a tax-farming concession Arsinoites

A.D. 158

Connotation: associate tax-farmer ll. 24–26: [οὐχ] ἕξω δὲ κοινωνὸν [οὐδὲ µίσθιο]ν γενάµενον τῆς [ὠνῆς ὑποτε]λῆ{ν} κτλ. Trans.: and I shall have [neither?] partner [nor hired worker?] who is [liable for this concession?] etc.

P.Amh. II 92 (TM: 10116) (= W.Chr. 311; cf. BL I, p. 3)

Application for a concession of oil sales Herakleia

A.D. 162/163

Connotation: associate tax-farmer ll. 3–23: βούλοµαι ἐπιχωρηθῆναι παρὰ σοῦ … κοτυλίζειν πᾶν ἔºαιον ἐν ἐργαστηρίῳ ἑνὶ ἐν κώµῃ Ἡρακλείᾳ Θεµίστου µερίδος καὶ τελέσιν εἰς τὸν τῆς ὠν[ῆς λόγ]ον ὑπὲρ ὅºου τοῦ ἐν̣[ιαυτοῦ] [ἀ]ρ̣γ̣ υ̣ ρ̣ [ίο]υ δραχµὰς ὀγδοήκον[τα] [ὀ]β̣ ολ[ο]ὺς ὀγδοήκοντα σύνπα[ν]τ[ι] λό[γῳ] … οὐχ ἕξω δὲ κ[ο]ινωνὸν οὐδὲ µίσθιον γ̣ ε ν̣ ̣[ό]µ̣ ε̣νον τῆς ὠνῆς ὑποτελῆ, δώσω [δ]ὲ καὶ ὑπὲρ διπλώµατος ἵππω[ν; cf. BL I, p. 3] δύο τ[ὰ] κατὰ συνηθίαν ν[ό]µ[ι]µα κτλ. Trans.: I wish to be granted from you … (the right) to sell all the oil in one workshop in the village of Herakleia of the division of Themistos, and to pay annually to the account of the tax on sales of oil eighty silver drachmas and eighty obols in total … and I will have neither partner nor hired worker who is liable for the contract, and I will give for a certificate two horses (?) as is customary etc. Biblio.: MM, s.v. κοινωνός, 351; San Nicolò, Vereinswesen 1:150; Preisigke, WB 1:816; Johnson, Roman Egypt, 368–69, #210; Llewelyn, NewDocs 8, 82–84, #5.

410

Appendix

P.Mich. XVIII 787 (TM: 22194) Petition draft Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 181–183

Connotation: sense and context unclear l. 40:〚ἐ̣κτό̣τε〛ὁ κοι[νω]νός µου ω ̣µ ̣ ̣π̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] κτλ. Trans.: my partner … (?) etc.

P.Oxy. XLV 3242 (TM: 15908) Declaration of property Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 185–187

Connotation: co-owner ll. 15–16: ἐστὶν τὸ ἐπιβάλλον ἐµοί τε καὶ κοινωνῷ µου [τέταρον] µέρος κτλ. Trans.: what befalls me and my partner, a fourth share etc.

SB X 10293 (TM: 14307) Affidavit of the assistant to the sitologos A.D. 198

Theadelphia Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector)

ll. 19–25: Ἐὰν δὲ µὴ ἀπαιτήσω ἀποδώσω τῷ πράκτορι τὸ ἐπιβά£ον µοι ἥµισυ µέρος ἀργυρίου δραχµὰς ἐνακοσίας δέκα, µένον̣ τος τοῦ λόγου τῷ Χ̣ α̣ ρίτωνι π̣ ρ̣ ὸ̣ς τὸν κο̣ ινωνόν µου Ἰσᾶν περὶ τ̣ῶν τῆς ἄ¶ης ἡµίας (δραχµῶν) ϡι η ἔνοχος εἴην τῷ ὅρκῳ. Trans. (Coles): “If I do not recover it, I shall pay to the collector the half-portion pertaining to me, nine hundred and ten silver drachmae, without prejudice to the claim of Chariton against my partner Isas for the 910 drachmae of the other half; otherwise may I be liable to the consequences of the oath.” Biblio.: Coles, JEA 52 (1966): 129–37. On the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

P.Amh. II 100 (TM: 21692) Agreement for a lake (concession?) Hermopolis Magna

A.D. 198–211

Connotation: lease partner ll. 3–8: ἐπεὶ ὁ Ἑρµῆς µισθωτὴς γενόµενος λίµνης [κα]λουµέν[η]ς Πάτρω[νο]ς εἰς ἔτη τρία ἀπὸ τοῦ δεκάτου (ἔτους) προσελάβετο τὸν Κορνήλιον κοινωνὸν τῆς αὐτῆς λίµνης κατὰ τὸ ἕκτον µέρος ἐπὶ φόρῳ κ[ατ’] ἔτος τῆς λίµνης ἀργυρίου δραχµαῖς δισχειλίαις, τυγχάνει δὲ ὁ Ἑρµῆς ἀπειληφὼς παρὰ τοῦ Κορνηλίου τοῦ καὶ Ἑρµοφίλου τὸ κατὰ ἑ̣αυτὸν ἕκτον τοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τῆς ὅºης τριετίας ταλάντου ἑνὸς, ὁµολογοῦµεν κατὰ τὰ προκείµενα µέρη εἴ τι α[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]τ̣ ̣τ̣ η̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣] κτλ.

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

411

Trans.: since Hermes has become the lessor of the lake called Patron for three years from the tenth year, he has taken Cornelius as partner for a sixth share of the said lake for an annual rent of 2,000 silver drachmas, and Hermes has received from Cornelius also called Hermophilos a sixth share of one talent for of the whole three year period, (and) we agree in accordance with the aforementioned portions … (?) etc. Biblio.: LSJ, s.v. κοινωνός; MM, s.v. κοινωνός, 351; BDAG, s.v. κοινωνός 1; San Nicolò, Vereinswesen 1:150–52; Preisigke, WB 1:816; Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 65; Herrmann, Bodenpacht, 217–18.

P.Mich. VI 426 (TM: 12264) Petition to the epistrategos Karanis

A.D. 199/200?

Connotation: associate presbyteros (i.e., village elder) ll. 7–12: ἔχει δὲ οὕτως· οἱ κώµης Καρανί̣δος τῆς αὐτῆς Ἡρακλείδου µερίδος πρεσβύτεροι ἀδεέστατοι τυγχάνοντες τῇ ἑαυτῶν βίᾳ καὶ αὐθαδίᾳ χρησάµενοι ὡς κοινωνῷ (= κοινωνὸν) αὐτῶν ἀναδοθέντα ὡς Ὧρον Ἀπολιναρίου ἀνύπαρκτον ὄνοµα ὃ καὶ ἀγνοῶ κτλ. Trans.: the situation is as follows: the elders of the village of Karanis of the same division of Herakleides, men without any fear, treated me with their violence and arrogance as their associate, giving (me) the fake name of Horos, son of Apolinarios which I do not even know etc. Biblio.: on Gemellus Horion (the plaintiff), see Kelly, Petitions, 138–43; on the role of πρεσβύτεροι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 146–53.

BGU XI 2067 (TM: 9588) Petition to the strategos Theadelphia

ca. A.D. II

Connotation: associate tax-collector ll. 1–10: [Φ]ανίᾳ στρατηγῶι Ἀρσι(νοίτου) Θεµ(ίστου) κ(αὶ) Πολέµωνος µερίδων παρὰ Τούρ̣βωνος Μύσθο(υ) κ(αὶ) ∆ιοσκόρου Μάρωνος καὶ Κάστορος Κάστορος τῶν γ πρακτό[ρω]ν ἀργυρικῶν κ̣ ώµη[ς Θ]εαδελφε[ί]ας. Ἐπὶ ἐτε̣λ̣ [εύτη]σεν ὁ κοιν[ω]νὸ[ς] ἡµ̣ [ῶ]ν̣ Π̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ – ca. ? – ] Χ̣ αι̣ρ̣ή µ̣ [ο]ν̣ ος ἀξιο̣ ῦ[µεν – ca. ? – ] (papyrus breaks off here) Trans.: To Phanias, the strategos of the districts of Themistos and Polemonos of Arsinoites, from Tourbon, son of Mysthas, and Dioskoros, son of Maron, and Kastor, son of Kastor, the three collectors of taxes of the village of Theadelphia. Since our partner P… (?), son of Chairemon, died, we considered … (?) Biblio.: Steinwenter, “Gesellschaftsrechte,” in Studi Riccobono (ed. Riccobono), 489 (n. 11).

412

Appendix

P.Oxy. III 532 (TM: 28372) Private letter Oxyrhynchos

A.D. II

Connotation: associate in an undetermined business ll. 1–10: Ἡρακλείδης Ἁτρῆτι τῶι φιλτ(άτῳ) χ[α]ίρειν. ἔδει µέν σε χωρ[ὶς τ]οῦ µε γεγραφέναι σοι διὰ Σαή̣του ἀναπέµψαι τὰς (δραχµὰς) κ, εἰδὼς ὅτι αὐτόθι µετεβαλόµην τοῖς κοινωνοῖς µου αὐτάς, ἀλλὰ ἀνέµεινας τὸν τοσοῦτον χρόνον µὴ ἀποδούς. Trans.: Herakleides to his dearest Hatres, greetings. You should have send me the twenty drachmas through Saetos without my writing to you, knowing that I remitted them on the spot to my partners; but you have waited all this time and have not paid (me). Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:816; Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 73.

P.Bad. IV 85B (TM: 27866) Land register Ankyron (Herakleopolites)

A.D. II

Connotation: lease partner? l. 12: [ – ca. ? – Ἡρακ]λ̣ είδης Νεµεσίωνος κονωνὸς ἐκ τοῦ Λε̣οντίσκο[υ – ca. ?– ] vac. ? Trans.: … (?) (Herakleides?), son of Nemesion, associate from Leontiskos.

P.Berl.Leihg. II 39 V (TM: 26679) Listes of names A.D. II

Theadelphia Connotation: lease partner? business partner? l. 188: Παποντ̣ῶ̣ς Ὅρ[ο]υ̣ κοινων̣ό̣ς κτλ. Trans.: Papontos, son of Horos, partner etc.

P.Oxy. XLII 3058 (TM: 26810) Private letter Oxyrhynchos

A.D. II

Connotation: associate in undetermined business ll. 1–5 (cf. l. 6: ὁ κοινωνὸς µου): Φλαύιος Μώρῳ τῷ ἀδελφῷ χαίρειν. ἐπὶ ἐταξάµην τῷ κοινωνῷ µου σὺν αὐτῷ ἀναβῆναι ἕνεκα τῶν µετεώρων ἡµῶν, ἔτυχέν µοι ὀφ̣ θ̣ α̣λ̣ µιᾶσαι κτλ. Trans.: Flavius to Moros, his brother, greetings. After I arranged with my partner to go up with him because of our pending (business), I became afflicted with ophthalmia etc.

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

413

PSI IV 306 (TM: 27854) Fragment of a land lease Oxyrhynchos

A.D. II–III?

Connotation: lease partner ll. 2–6: ὁµο[λογοῦµεν – ca. ? – ] προσειληφέναι Τ[ ̣ ̣ ̣]ο̣ ην κοινωνὸν ἐξ ̣ ἴ̣σ̣ου [ – ca. ? – ἀπὸ] Ἐπεὶφ τοῦ ἐνεστ[ῶτος] γ (ἔτους) µέχρει α Πα[ῦν]ι … µερίδος ὅσων ε̣ἰ̣σὶν ἀρουρῶν ἀπὸ (ἀρουρῶν?) κτλ. Trans.: we acknowledge to have received T(…?) as a partner on equal (shares?) (…?) [from] the month of Epeiph of the current 3rd year until the 1st of Pauni … of the lot or as many arouras from (?) etc. Biblio.: MM, s.v. κοινωνός, 351; Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 72; idem, LGRE, 391 (n.13).

SB XIV 12139 (TM: 27521) Memorandum of the Prefect of Egypt Oxyrhynchites

A.D. II–III

Connotation: co-owner ll. 13–14: εἰ δὲ µή, ὁ κοινωνὸς ἀγορασάτω τὸ τοῦ ταµείου µέρος κτλ. Trans.: otherwise, let the partner buy the share (that falls to) the fiscus etc. Biblio.: Youtie, ZPE 27 (1977): 124–37.

P. Amh. II 94 (TM: 21685) (= W.Chr. 347)

Partnership contract Hermopolis Magna

A.D. 208

Connotation: lease partner ll. 2–8: [ὁ]µολογῶ παρειληφέναι σε κοινωνὸν κατὰ [τήνδε τὴν ὁµολογίαν] ὧν κἀγὼ ἐµισθωσάµην ἐκ τοῦ δηµοσίου [ – ca. 14 – εἰς ἔτη πέν]τε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος ιζ (ἔτους) Σεουήρου [καὶ Ἀντωνίνου καὶ Γέτ]α Καισάρων τῶν κυρίων ἐν τῷ Περὶ πόλ(ιν) κάτω [περὶ – ca. 10 – ἐκ τ]οῦ ∆ιονυσίου χορτενχέρσου ἀρουρῶν [ – ca. 16 – ] ἡµίσου[ς] τετάρτου ὀγδόου ἑκκαιδεκάτου [ – ca. 14 – ] ̣ ̣κτλ. Trans.: I acknowledge to have taken you as my partner according to [this agreement?], and I leased from public [land for five years?] from the current 17th year of the Caesars Severus [and Antoninus and Geta], our Lords, in Lower Peripolis, 15/16 arouras of grass-land (formerly cultivated) by Dionysios etc. Biblio.: San Nicolò, Vereinswesen 1:150–52; Preisigke, WB 1:816; Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 65, 67; Johnson, Roman Egypt, 118–19, #47; Montevecchi, La papirologia, 225; Herrmann, Bodenpacht, 218; Seidl, Rechtsgeschichte, 194.

414

Appendix

BGU XIII 2298 (TM: 9698) Receipt for rent Soknopaiou Nesos

A.D. 208

Connotation: associate to presbyteroi ll. 5–8 (cf. l. 11): παρ(έσχον) πρ̣[εσ]β(ύτεροι) κ̣ ώ(µης) Σοκνο(παίου) Νήσ(ου) δι̣(ὰ) [Σώ]τ̣α Ἑρ̣ ι έ̣ ̣ω̣ ς ̣ κο(ινωνοῦ) οὐσ(ίας) (πρότερον) Θεω(νίνου) φόρου α ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣δραχ(µὰς) ἑκα[τ]ὸ̣ν̣ τριάκον̣[τ]α δ̣ [ύ]ο κτλ. Trans.: The elders of the village of Soknopaiou Nesos have paid through their associate [Sotas], son of Herieus, for the rent of the estate formerly belonging to Theoninos … (?) one hundred thirty-two drachmas etc.

P.Lond. III 1164 (TM: 22817) Sale contract for a house Antinoopolis

A.D. 212

Connotation: co-owner Frag. F, ll. 26–27: καὶ οὐκ ἐξέσται οὐδενὶ τῶν ὠνουµένων πωλεῖν ξένῳ τὸ κατ’ αὐτὸν µέρος ἢ µόνοις τοῖς προκειµένοις αὐτοῦ κοινωνοῖς κτλ. Trans.: and it is not permitted to any of the purchaser (of the house) to sell their share to a foreigner or to a single of his aforementioned co-owners etc.

P.Oxy. XLIII 3090 (TM: 15969) Liturgists’ report Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 216

Connotation: associate liturgist ll. 9–12: προσφωνοῦµεν ὀµνύοντ(ες) τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Αὐτοκράτορος Σεουήρου Ἀντωνίνου τύχην ἀποδεδηµηκέναι ἡµᾶς ὁµοῦ τοῖς κωνοῖς [ὑ]πὸ τοὺς ἐφεστῶτας ἄρχοντας µέχρι τοῦ Ἡρακλεο(πολίτου) κτλ. Trans.: we report, swearing by the fortune of our Lord Caesar Severus Antoninus, that we were away travelling together with our associates under (the command) of the magistrates appointed (over us) as far as Herakleopolites etc.

P.Oxy. XLIII 3092 (TM: 15971) Partnership agreement (tax-farming concession) Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 217

Connotation: associate tax-farmer ll. 4–6: δι’ οὗ προσέγραψαν προσλαµ[βάνεσθαι αὐτο]ὺς κοινωνοὺς κατὰ τὸ ἥµισυ ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ κϛ \ β̣ / (ἔτους) τῆ̣ς ̣ [προκειµένης ὠ]νῆς κτλ.

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

415

Trans.: through which they made an additional written application to be taken as associates according to a half share from the same 26th (2nd) year of the [aforesaid?] taxfarming concession etc.

P.Col. X 276 (TM: 22271) Petition to the strategos Oxyrhynchites

ca. A.D. 218–225

Connotation: leaser partner? co-owner? ll. 3–9: Αὐρηλ̣ ί̣[α] Σαραποῦ̣ς ∆ιδύµου … δοῦσα εἰς ὠνὴν φυτῶν \ὄντων/ ἐν κλήρῳ τ̣ ῆ̣ς εὐσχήµ̣ ο̣ νος Τµω λεγοµένῳ περὶ Νεµέρων̣ … καὶ π̣ ρ̣ οσλ̣ αβο̣ µ̣έ̣νη ἑαυτῇ κοινωνὸν Εἰρηναῖον ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ο̣ ̣ι [̣ ̣ ̣] κτλ. Trans.: Aurelia Sarapous, daughter of Didymos … having paid for the sale plantations which are in the lot called Tmo near Nemera … and having taken Eirenaios for herself as partner … (?) etc.

P.Oxy. L 3591 (TM: 15404) Land lease Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 219

Connotation: co-owner ll. 1–13: ἐµίσθωσεν Αὐρήλιος ∆ιοσκουρίδης … Αὐρηλίῳ Σαραπίωνι … τὰς ὑπαρχούσας αὐ̣τ̣ῷ κ̣ αὶ τοῖς κοινωνοῖς ̣ αὐτοῦ περὶ Με̣ρµέρθα … ἀρούρας δέκα κτλ. Trans.: Aur. Dioscouros has leased … to Aur. Sarapion … the ten arouras belonging to him and his partners near Mermertha etc. Biblio.: Migliardi, Vita, 64–65, #31.

SB XVI 12505 (TM: 16256) Petition Lykopolis

A.D. 221

Connotation: joint-heir ll. 8–10: [παρ’ ἐµοῦ πο£ὰ] ὑπὲρ λόγου τροφείων ἀναλώσαντος τοισ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣α̣ ( ) [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ἡ προγεγρ]α̣ µµέ(νη) γ̣ υνή µου κοινωνὸς τῆς ἡµισείας ̣ κλ̣ η̣ ρ̣[ονοµίας(?) µου …] κτλ. Trans.: … (?) over the account of expenses for wet-nursing … (?) my aforementioned wife and partner of half of my (inheritance?) etc.

416

Appendix

P.Gen. I 41 (2nd ed.) (TM: 11235) Financial report Philadelphia

A.D. 223

Connotation: associate presbyteros (i.e., village elder) ll. 1–9: Κοπρῆς Τροφ[ί]µ̣ ου καὶ Ἀπ[ῦγ]χ̣[ι]ς Πανετβη̣ ούιος … κ̣α̣ὶ τ̣ ῶ̣ν λο̣ ι̣πῶν πρε̣[σβ(ύτερων)] κώµης Φιλαδελφείας Σαραπίων̣[ι] Τ̣ εσενούφιο̣ [ς] κ̣ οινωνὸς (= κοινωνῷ) ἡµῶν χαίρειν. ἐσχήκ̣ α̣ µ̣ εν παρὰ σο̣ ῦ̣ [τ]ο̣ ῦ ὅºου χρό̣ν̣ου ἡµῶν εἰς λόγον δα̣ πάνης καὶ ὀψ[ω]νίου γραµµατεὺς καὶ πασῶν δ̣ απανῶν ἀργ̣ υρίου δραχµὰς ἑπτακοσίας κτλ. Trans.: Kopres, son of Trophimos, and Aphynchis, son of Panetbeous, … , and the other elders of the village of Philadelphia, to Sarapion, son of Tesenouphis, our associate, greeting. We have received from you for our entire period (of office) on account of the expenditure, salary, and all expenses of the secretary, 700 silver drachmas etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:816; Jakab, Tyche 16 (2001): 82. On the role of πρεσβύτεροι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 146–53.

P.Stras. V 458 (TM: 13361) Receipt of rent payment Arsinoites

A.D. 228

Connotation: lease partner ll. 1–2: Αὐρήλιος ∆ηµήτριος Πτο£[ᾶτ]ι̣ κ̣ α̣ ὶ̣ Σαραπάµµωνι κυνωνο[ῖς χ]α̣ ίρει̣ν̣ κτλ. Trans.: Aur. Demetrios to Ptollatos and Sarapammon, associates (i.e., joint-lessors), greetings etc.

BGU IV 1062 (TM: 18507) (= W.Chr. 276)

Tax-farming contract Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 236

Connotation: associate tax-collector l. 36: ὁ γὰρ Σύρος ὁ καὶ Ἀγαθὸς ∆αί(µων) ἐστὶν Πτολε̣µαίου Κερκεθυρείτου υἱὸς ὡς κοινωνὸς τοῦ Γαίου. Trans.: for Syros, who is also called Agathos Daimon, is the son of Ptolemaios, from Kerkethyris, as a partner of Gaius. Biblio.: San Nicolò, Vereinswesen 1:150–52; Preisigke, WB 1:816; Johnson, Roman Egypt, 588–89, #341.

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

417

SPP XX 13 (TM: 27758) Petition? Arsinoites

A.D. 254

Connotation: sense unclear l. 27: [ – ca. ? – ] κοι[νω]νοῖς Γ[αί]ῳ Ἰουλ(ίῳ) Κέλερι ὡ̣ς ̣ (ἐτῶν) µ ἀσήµ(ῳ) καὶ Ε[ – ca. ? –]

P.Wisc. I 3 (TM: 16812) Petition Provenance?

A.D. 254–259

Connotation: associate leitourgos? ll. 1–4: [ – ca. 27 – ]φ̣ η̣ [ ̣]ο̣ ι ̣ στεφάνων̣ µ̣ ο̣ [υ οὐκ] ὤνησα, ἀ£ὰ παν̣ τ̣ ὶ̣ σθένει ὁµοῦ τοῖς κοινωνοῖς κατασκευασθῆναι ἐπεθέµην κτλ. Trans.: … (?) I have not benefitted from my honorary crowns, but with all my strength together with my associates I have applied myself to fulfil (these liturgies?) etc.

PSI V 465 (TM: 19305) Acknowledgment of a debt Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 264/268

Connotation: associate leather dealers ll. 1–15: Αὐρήλιοι Ἀντίµαχος Ἡρακλείδου µητρὸς Βησοῦτος καὶ ὁ κοινωνὸς Λάµαχος καὶ ∆ιονύσιος Λουκίου [µη]τρὸς Σερηνί¶ης, οἱ ¿ ἀπ’ Ὀξυρύγχων πόλεως, Αὐρηλίῳ Ἀγαθῷ ∆αίµονι ὀπτίωνι ε̣ξ α̣ κ( ) κο( ) λεγιῶνος δευτέρας Τραιανῆς Γαλλιηνῆς Ἰσχυρᾶς … χαίρειν. Ὁµολογοῦµεν ὀφείλειν σοι ὑπὲρ τῆς µητροπόλεως ι (ἔτους) καὶ ια (ἔτους) καὶ ιβ (ἔτους) δέρµατα καθαρ̣ ὰ ἀθερ̣ά[πευτα ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣κτλ. Trans.: Aur. Antimachos, son of Herakleidos and Besous, and his partner Aur. Lamachos, and Aur. Dionysios, son of Lucius and Serenilla, all three from the city of Oxyrhynchos, to Aur. Agathos Daimon, adjutant, exactor (?), cornicularius (?) of the Legio II Traiana Galliana Fortis … greetings. We acknowledge that we owe you for the metropolis for the 10th, 11th, 12th years, clean and uncured hides etc. Biblio.: Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 74; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 392 (n. 21); Steinwenter, “Gesellschaftsrechte,” in Studi Riccobono (ed. Riccobono), 489 (n. 11); Johnson, Roman Egypt, 633, #387.

P.Wash.Univ. I 18 (TM: 16207) Farm account Herakleopolites? Connotation: sense unclear (papyrus very fragmented) l. 19: [ – ca. ? – θ ἕω]ς ̣ ι µετὰ Σ̣ αγίω̣ ν̣ο̣ [ς τοῦ κο]ι̣νωνοῦ

A.D. 286

418

Appendix

P.Oxy. XVII 2143 (TM: 17522) Order for wage payment Oxyrhynchites

A.D. 293

Connotation: business partner (brick-maker) ll. 1–4: Ζωίλος Ὡρίωνι χαίρειν. δὸς Πάµµωνι πλινθ(ευτῇ) εἰς λόγ(ον) µισθ(οῦ) ὧν ποιεῖται ἔργων ἄχρι συνάρσεως πυρο(ῦ) (ἀρτάβας) ιβ, γ(ίνονται) (πυροῦ ἀρτ.) ιβ, Ἁτρῇ ἑτέρῳ κοινωνῷ αὐτοῦ ὁµοί(ως) (πυροῦ ἀρτ.) ιβ κτλ. Trans.: Zoilos to Horion, greetings. Pay to Pammon, the brick-maker, on account of his wage for the work which he did until the balancing of the accounts, 12 artabas of wheat, that is, 12 (artabas of wheat), and to Hatres, his other partner, likewise 12 artabas of wheat, etc. Biblio.: Steinwenter, “Gesellschaftsrechte,” in Studi Riccobono (ed. Riccobono), 489 (n. 11).

P.Harr. I 93 (TM: 21076) Account for the transport of corn Provenance?

A.D. 294

Connotation: associate donkey-driver ll. 1–4: (ἔτους) ια´ καὶ ι´ καὶ γ´ Χοίακ ιθ θησαυροῦ νοµοῦ βορινοῦ … διὰ µὲν Βῆς ὀνηλ(άτου) καὶ Ὀκύνωνος (= ὁ κοινωνός) β´ φο(ρά), ὄνο(ι) ϛ´, σάκ(κοι) ιβ´, (ἀρτάβαι) κδ κτλ. Trans.: 11th, 10 th, and 3 rd year, Choiak 19, of the granary of the northern nome … through Bes the donkey-driver and his partner, 2 carriers with 6 donkeys, 12 sacks, 24 artabas etc. Note: the ed. pr. was unsure about the name Ὀκύνωνος. “ Ὀκύνων, if correctly read, is not recorded in Preisigke’s Namenbuch” (Powell, P.Harr. I 93, p. 78; cf. Preisigke, NB, 239–40). And indeed it is never attested in the Trismegistos database of names (except for this instance). It is not found in standard Greek onomastics volumes either (cf. Traill, Persons 13:437–38; Fraser and Matthews, Lexicon, 1:348, 2:349, 3A:339, 3B:322, 4:261, 5A:343). Youtie’s reading ὁ κοινωνός is therefore most likely to be correct. Biblio.: Youtie, ZPE 21 (1976): 202; repr. in Scriptiunculae 1.

O.Mich. II 899 (TM: 42779) Receipt for grain delivery Karanis

A.D. 296

Connotation: associate dekaprotos (i.e., municipal official). Cf. O.Mich. I 76, 454. ll. 1–3: [θ]η(σαυροῦ) ὁρ(ιοδεικτίας) Καρ(ανίδος) [δ]ε̣κ̣ α̣ (πρώτων) Σουχιδᾶ [κ]α̣ ὶ̣ κοι(νωνῶν) κτλ. Trans.: from the granary of the horiodeiktias (i.e., administrative district) of Karanis, from the dekaprotoi Souchida and his associates etc.

419

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

Note: the same dekaprotos and associates also appear in O.Mich. I 76, 454. Biblio.: on the δεκάπρωτοι (i.e., decemprimi), see esp. Oertel, Liturgie, 211–14; Turner, JEA 22.1 (1936): 7–19.

P.Col. VII 136 (TM: 10489) Receipts for transportation charges and various taxes Karanis

A.D. 296–298

Connotation: associate sitoparalemptes (i.e., grain collector) ll. 45–46 (cf. ll. 29, 54): Παῆσις ̣ ἔγραψα ὑπὲρ τῶν κοινων(ῶν) ἀγραµµάτων κτλ. Trans.: I, Paesis, wrote for my illiterate partners etc. Biblio.: on παραλῆµται see Oertel, Liturgie, 207–208.

P.Oxy. XLV 3246 (TM: 15911) Petition fragment A.D. 297–298

Oxyrhynchos Connotation: associate in an undetermined business? co-owner?

ll. 9–10: (παρὰ + names) τῶν πάντων τῆς λαµπρᾶς καὶ λαµ(προτάτης) Ὀξυρυγχ[ι]τ̣ῶ̣ν πόλεως, καὶ [τῶν κ]ο̣ ινων̣ ῶ̣ν̣ ἔστιν τ[ο]ίνυν, ἄριστε τῶν [στ]ρ̣α̣ τ̣ [ηγῶ]ν̣, χῶµα ἐν οἷς κε … (papyrus breaks off here) Trans.: from (so and so), all from the most illustrious city of Oxyrhynchos, and associates. There is, best of strategos, a dyke in … (?) (papyrus breaks off here) Biblio.: Nielsen, BASP 31.3–4 (1994): 129–30.

P.Panop.Beatty 1 (ll. 347–352, 389–391) (TM: 44881) Official letters A.D. 298

Panopolis Connotation: associate epimeletes (i.e., curator)

l. 347 (cf. ll. 350, 392): Ἰσιδώρῳ ἐπιτρόπῳ. κελεύσα[ντό]ς ̣ σου, κύριέ µου, τοὺς κοινωνοὺς πάντας Ὀλυµπ̣ ίου ἐπειµελητοῦ ἀχύρου τῆς ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] κτλ. Trans.: to Isidoros, the procurator. As you have ordered, my Lord, all the associates of Olympios, the epimeletes of chaff … (?)etc. Biblio.: on ἐπιµεληταί see Oertel, Liturgie, 214–221.

P.Leit. 13 (TM: 32160) (= SB VIII 10205)

Liturgy contract Oxyrhynchos Connotation: associate tax-collector

mid-A.D. III

420

Appendix

ll. 1–6: ὁµολογοῦσιν ἀλλήλοις Αὐρήλιοι Μόδεστος … πράκτωρ ἅµ’ ἄ¶ οις σειτ[ι]κῶν µητροπολειτι̣κ̣ ῶ̣ν̣ ληµµάτων … κα̣ ὶ̣ ὁ εἷς τῶν κοινωνῶν Μέλας [Μέ]λαν̣[ο]ς καὶ Ν̣ επωτιανὸς Θέωνος ̣ κτλ. Trans.: Aur. Modestus … tax-collector together with others of the (office of) grain revenues from the metropolites … and one of his associates, Melas, son of Melas, and Nepotianos, son of Theon have agreed with one another etc.

SB XVIII 14067 (TM: 30992) Fragment of a land register Oxyrhynchites

A.D. III

Connotation: lease partner? co-owner? l. 16: [ – ca. ? – ] ̣καὶ τῶ[ν] κοι(νωνῶν) ἀπὸ̣ Λ̣ ευκίου κολ(λήµατος) ι ̣χ̣οι̣( ) (ἄρουραι) ρλ̣ [ – ca. ? ] κτλ. Trans.: … and the associates from Leukios kollema 10 … (?) etc. Biblio.: Sijpesteijn and Worp, ZPE 70 (1987): 128–32.

PSI Congr. XXI 16B (TM: 31947) Official letter A.D. III

Oxyrhynchites? Connotation: lease partner? co-owner? business associate? l. 7: [ – ca. ? – ]στων ∆ιοσκόρου καὶ Σύρου κοινωνῶν α̣ ὐ̣τοῦ κτλ. Trans.: … (?) of Dioskoros and of Syros, his associates etc.

P.Leid.Inst. 58 (TM: 31003) Account A.D. III

Provenance? Connotation: sense unclear l. 4: [ – ca. ? – ] τ̣ῷ κοινωνῷ αὐτ̣ [οῦ – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: to his associates (?) etc.

P.Oxy. XLI 2954 (TM: 30376) Edict of C. Avidius Heliodorus Oxyrhynchos

A.D. III

Connotation: co-owner ll. 12–25: Γάι̣[ο]ς ̣ [Ἀουί]δ̣ ιος Ἡλιόδωρος ἔπαρχος Αἰγύ̣[πτο]υ̣ λ̣ έγει. ὁρῶ πολλοὺς ἐντυγ[χά]νοντάς µοι περὶ τῶν πιπρασκοµένων κοινωνιµέων κτηµάτων ἄνευ τῆς τῶν κοινωνῶν γνώµης. εἰ µὴ πρότερον διὰ µεταδο[σ]ίµων µεταδῷ τοῖς µὲν κοινωνοῖς ἐν

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

421

ἡµέραις ἑξήκοντα, τοῖς δὲ γείτοσι ἐν ἡµέραις τρ̣ [ιά]κοντα, ὃς ἐὰν πωλήσῃ µὴ µεταδοὺς αὐτοῖς στερηθήσεται καὶ τῆς τειµῆς χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπιπληχθῆναι. Trans.: Gaius Avidius Heliodorus, prefect of Egypt, declares: “I see that many have appealed to me concerning jointly owned properties being sold without the knowledge of the joint-owners. Unless he/she communicates with the co-owners through a notification sixty days before, and to the neighbours thirty days (before), whoever sells (the property) without communicating with them shall be deprived of the price (of the sale) as well, (though) without being punished. Biblio.: Herrmann, ZRG 92 (1973): 260–66; Youtie, ZPE 27 (1977): 126.

P.Oxy. XII 1532 (TM: 31756) List of wheat and barley payments Oxyrhynchites

late A.D. III

Connotation: associate farmer? Description (no text provided): “End of 13 lines from the top of a column of a list of payments in wheat and barley by (βασιλικοὶ) γεωργοί, some of whom have κοινωνοί.”

P.Flor. I 64 (TM: 32138) (Cf. Worp, “P.Flor. 1.64,” BASP 45 [2008]: 261–75)

Fragments of a land register

A.D. III–IV

Hermopolites Connotation: associate tax-collector?

Frag. A, V, ll. 40–42 (Worp): ἐκ τοῦ Μοσχίωνος ἰδι(ωτικῆς) ἐ(σ)π(αρµένης) (ἄρ.) ε φόρου ἀπο[τ]άκτου µετὰ τὰ δηµόσια (πυροῦ) (ἀρτ.) ι (τάλ.) γ (δρ.) Β̣ δι(ὰ) Κελελ̣[ύ]τ̣ιος καὶ κοινωνῶν ἀπὸ Ἄρεως κτλ. Trans.: from the lot of Moschionos of private, sown (land), 5 arouras of fixed rent, after (deduction of) public taxes, 10 (artabas), 3 (talents), 2,000 (drachmas), through Kelelythis and (his) associates from Hareos etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:816; Sijpesteijn and Worp, ZPE 29 (1978): 267–69.

P.Oxy. LIX 3980 (TM: 19267) Official letter Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 300–302

Connotation: associate dekaprotos (i.e., municipal official) ll. 3–5: Αὐρηλί̣[ο]ις Ἀλεξάνδρῳ καὶ Στρατονίκῳ καὶ τοῖς κοινωνοῖς, δεκαπρώτοις κτλ. Trans.: to Aur. Alexandros and Aur. Stratonikos and their associate dekaprotoi etc. Biblio.: on the δεκάπρωτοι (i.e., decemprimi), see esp. Oertel, Liturgie, 211–14; Turner, JEA 22.1 (1936): 7–19.

422

Appendix

P.Cair.Isid. 6 (TM: 10389) Land register Karanis

A.D. 300–305

Connotation: co-owner l. 225: Ἀϊ̣[ῶν] καὶ οἱ κοι(νωνοὶ) βασιλ(ικῆς) σπο(ρίµης) (ἄρουρα) α  ιϛ´ ξδ´ κτλ. Trans.: Aeion and his associates, 1 1/2 1/16 1/64 of royal seed land etc.

P.Lips. I 101 (TM: 22430) Account Hermopolis

A.D. 300–325

Connotation: business associate? lease partner? co-owner? Frag. 2, ll. 6–7: νυνὶ δι(ὰ) Νέου (?) Ἑρµάµµων(ος) καὶ κοινωνῶν κτλ. Trans.: from Demeas, son of Hermammon, and (his) associates etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:816.

SB XXIV 15954 (TM: 44537) Tax receipt Arsinoites

A.D. 301

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 1–3: διὰ τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ σιτολόγων Ἀκυλά̣ου καὶ τῶν κοινωνῶν κτλ. Trans.: through the sitologoi of Akylaos and their associates etc. Biblio.: On the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

P.Sakaon 87 (TM: 13105) (= P.Stras. III 141; SB V 8023)

Receipt for tax payment

Theadelphia

post A.D. 302

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 1–12: διέγραψεν Πᾶσις Νειλάµµωνος τιµὴν π̣ υροῦ ιζ καὶ ιϛ καὶ ἐνάτου{ς} ἔτους κώµης Θεαδελφίας ἀργυρίου δραχµὰς τρεισχιλίας ἑξακοσίας δι’ ἡµῶν Σαραπίωνος καὶ Ἐσούρεως καὶ τὸν κυνωνῶν σιτολόγων. Trans.: Pasis, son of Neilammon, paid the price of wheat for the 17th, 16th, and 9th years, (to the account) of the village of Theadelphia, 3,600 silver drachmas through us, Sarapion and Esouris, and the associate sitologoi.

423

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

P.Col. VII 137 (TM: 10490) Tax receipts Karanis

A.D. 302

Connotation: associate apaitetes (i.e., tax-collector) l. 5: δι’ Ἀχι£ᾶ καὶ Ἀραβικ̣ ο̣ ῦ καὶ τῶν κοι(νωνῶν) ἀπαιτ(ητῶν) κτλ. Trans.: (paid) through Achillas and Arabikos and their partners, apaitetai etc. Biblio.: on ἀπαιτηταί see Oertel, Liturgie, 204–207.

P.Cair.Isid. 41 (TM: 10372) Receipt for various taxes Karanis

A.D. 302–312

Connotation: associate sitologos/apaitetes (i.e., tax-collector) l. 31 (cf. ll. 35, 53, 82, 87): καὶ οἱ κοι(νωνοὶ) σι[το]λόγοι l. 48: καὶ τῶν κ[ο]ι(νωνῶν) ἀπαι(τητῶν) Biblio.: on the role of ἀπαιτηταί and σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 204–207, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

P.Mich. XII 643 (TM: 12308) Receipt for tax payments Philadelphia

A.D. 303

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 4–5: διέγρ(αψαν) Κορνήλιος καὶ Ἀπύγχις καὶ οἱ κοι(νωνοὶ) σιτολόγ[ο]ι κτλ. Trans.: Cornelius, Aphynchis, and the associate sitologoi etc. Biblio.: on the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

P.Mich. XII 644 (TM: 12309) Receipt for tax payments Philadelphia Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 20–21: Ἄφον καὶ Πᾶσις καὶ οἱ κοι(νωνοὶ) σιτολόγ(οι) κτλ. Trans.: Aphon, Pasis, and the associate sitologoi etc. Biblio.: as above.

A.D. 303

424

Appendix

P.Mich. XII 645 (TM: 12310) Receipt for tax payments Philadelphia

A.D. 304

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 8–9: Ἄφον καὶ Πτολεµαῖος καὶ οἱ κοι(νωνοὶ) σι(τολόγοι) κτλ. Trans.: Aphon, Ptolemaios, and the associate sitologoi etc. Biblio.: as above.

P.Mich. XII 646 (TM: 12311) Receipt for tax payments Philadelphia

A.D. 304

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 3–4 (cf. ll. 22–25): Ἀπύγ[χις] καὶ Ἀβ̣ [οεῖς καὶ οἱ] κ̣ ο̣ ι (̣ νωνοὶ) [σ]ι̣(τολόγοι) κτλ. Trans.: Apynchis, Aboeis, [and the] associate sitologoi etc. Biblio.: as above.

P.Mich. X 600 (TM: 12280) Receipt for tax payments Philadelphia

A.D. 304

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 4–5: διέ(γραψαν) Ἄφον καὶ Παπέεις καὶ οἱ κοι(νωνοὶ) τι(µῆς) πυροῦ κτλ. Trans.: Aphon, Papeeis, and their associates have paid for the price of wheat etc. Biblio.: as above.

P.Oxy. XXXVI 2766 (TM: 16557) Declaration by an epimeletes Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 305

Connotation: associate apodektes (i.e., collector) ll. 9–10 (cf. l. 13): παρὰ µὲν Αὐρηλίων Σαβίνου καὶ τῶν κοινωνῶν ἀποδ̣ ε ̣κ̣ τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ κτλ. Trans.: from the Aurelii Sabinus and his associate apodektai etc. Biblio.: on the role of ἀποδέκται, see Oertel, Liturgie, 222–25.

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

425

P.Cair.Isid. 44 (TM: 10375) Receipt for the delivery of pigs Karanis

A.D. 305–306

Connotation: associate apaitetes (i.e., tax-collector) ll. 6–7: καὶ τοῖς κυνωνοῖς ἀπετηταῖς Trans.: and to the associate apaitetai Biblio.: as above.

P.Oxy. XII 1542 (TM: 21910) Counter-receipt for taxes on corn Seryphis (Oxyrhynchites)

A.D. 307

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 13–16: Πλούταρχος καὶ Ὀννῶ[φρι]ς καὶ τῶν κοινωνῶν σειτολόγων κτλ. Trans.: from Plutarch and Onnophris and their associate sitologoi etc. Biblio.: on the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

P.Col. VII 141 (TM: 10494) Receipts for various taxes Karanis

A.D. 308–310

Connotation: associate apaitetes (i.e., tax-collector) ll. 79–80: Αὐρήλ̣ [ιο]ι̣ [Κοπρῆς κ]α̣ ὶ̣ Ἅρπαλος καὶ Ἁτρῆς καὶ οἱ̣ κο̣ ι (̣ νωνοὶ) ἀµφότεροι ἀπετη̣ [ταὶ] ἀχύρου κτλ. Trans.: Aur. [Kopres] and Aur. Harpalos and Aur. Hatres and their partners, all apaitetai of chaff etc. Biblio.: on ἀπαιτηταί see Oertel, Liturgie, 204–207.

P.Cair.Isid. 9 (TM: 10421) Report of the sitologoi Karanis Connotation: co-owner? lease partner? tax collector? l. 116: Πτολλᾶς Γερµανοῦ καὶ οἱ κοι(νωνοὶ) (ἀρτ.) ρµα κτλ. Trans.: Ptollas, son of Germanos, and his associates, 141 (artabas) etc.

A.D. 309

426

Appendix

P.Cair.Isid. 47 (TM: 17377) (= SB VI 9070)

Receipts for barley and transportation charges Kerke

A.D. 309

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) l. 16 (cf. ll. 3, 40): καὶ τοῖς κοι(νωνοῖς) σιτ(ολόγοις) κτλ. Trans.: and to the associate sitologoi etc. Biblio.: on the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

P.Oxy. XLVI 3270 (TM: 15737) Lease of fishing rights Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 309

Connotation: lease partner (in a fishing concession) ll. 4–14: Αὐρηλίῳ Σαραπίωνι Ἀφύγχιος ἀπὸ τῆς λαµ(πρᾶς) καὶ λαµ(προτάτης) Ὀξυρυγχιτῶν πόλεως καὶ τοῖς κοινωνοῖς µισθωταῖς ε̣ἰ̣χθυηρᾶς πόλεως Ὀξυρυγχίτου vac. (?) παρὰ Αὐρηλίου Λουκίου Λουκίου ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς πόλε[ω]ς [καὶ τ]ῶν κοινω[ν]ῶν. ἑκουσίως ἐπιδεχόµεθα µ[ισ]θ̣ ώ̣σ̣α̣ σ̣ θαι ἄγραν εἰχθύων ὑδάτων τῆς οὔσης ἀναβάσεως θυρῶν Τανύρεως καὶ Ματρίνου … καὶ τελέσοµεν ὑπὲρ φόρων τῶν θυρῶν Τα[νύρεως – ca. ? – ] καὶ Ματρίνου ἡµῖν τοῖς µισθωταῖς ἀργυρίο[υ τάλαντα] δεκατέσσερα καὶ δραχµ̣ ὰ̣ς ̣ τρισχιλίας κτλ. Trans.: To Aur. Sarapion, son of Aphynchis, from the illustrious and most illustrious city of the Oxyrhynchites, and to his partners, lessors of the fishing (concession) of the city of the Oxyrhynchites. vac. From Aur. Lucius, son of Lucius, of the same city, and his partners. We voluntarily accept to lease (the right) to fish in the flood waters by the gates of Tanyris and Matrinos … and we shall pay to you the lessors for the rent of the gates of Tanyris (?) and Matrinos 14 [talents] and 3,000 drachmas of silver etc. Biblio.: Horsley, NewDocs 3, 17–19, #4. On concessions of fishing rights in general, see Taubenschlag, LGRE, 664–66. Cf. P.Oxy. XLVI 3269.

P.Sakaon 16 (TM: 13032) (= P.Thead. 41)

Receipts for a λόγος ἀπόρων ὀνοµάτων Theadelphia

A.D. 309

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 4–6 (cf. ll. 10–11): διέ(γραψαν) Σοῦλ καὶ Μέλας καὶ οἱ κοι(νωνοὶ) σιτ(ολόγοι) Θεαδελφείας λόγου ἀπόρ̣ ων ὀνοµάτων ἐκ θείας κρίσεως τάλαν(τα) τέσσερα, (γίνονται) (τάλαντα) δ. Trans.: Soul, Melas, and their associate sitologoi, paid for the account of barren land of Theadelphia, by imperial decision, four talents, that is, 4 (talents). Note: Boak and Youtie explain the ἄποροι as either persons “from whom the state derived no revenue, usually because they had abandoned their villages … , or parcels of land

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

427

which had become unproductive in consequence of such abandonment and had been added to the common responsibility of the villagers.” Boak and Youtie, P.Cair.Isid. 68, p. 271 (n. 17). Cf. LSJ, s.v. ἄπορος III.3.; Preisigke, WB, s.v. ἄπορος, 192; Jouguet, P.Thead. 41, pp. 195–96; Rostovtzeff, Economic History, 1:582. Biblio.: on the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

P.Cair.Isid. 50 (TM: 17378) Receipts for wheat Kerke

A.D. 310

Connotation: associate apodektes and sitologos (i.e., grain collectors) ll. 4–5 (cf. ll. 20, 36): [κ]αὶ κοινωνοῖς ἀποδέκ[ταις] l. 24: καὶ κοινωνῶν σιτολόγων Biblio.: on the role of ἀποδέκται and σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 222–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

P.Cair.Isid. 96 (TM: 10428) Loan of wheat A.D. 310

Karanis Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector)

ll. 4–5: οἱ κοι(νωνῶν) σιτολόγοι Biblio.: on the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

P.Cair.Isid. 95 (TM: 10427) (= SB VI 9183)

Loan of wheat Karanis Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 4–5: καὶ τῶν κοινονῶν πάντων σιτολόγων Biblio.: as above.

A.D. 310

428

Appendix

SB V 7621 (TM: 14032) (rev. ed. Bagnall and Worp, APF 30 [1984]: 53–82)

Receipts of tax payments

A.D. 310–324

Philadelphia Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 1–2: οἱ κοινω(νοὶ) ἀ̣µφότεροι σιτολόγοι (cf. ll. 36, 84, 95, 130–131, 249–250, 257) Biblio.: as above.

P.Oxy. XXXIII 2668 (TM: 16873) Official letter Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 311

Connotation: business associate (in the annona militaris) ll. 7–16: σπούδασον ποιῆσαι παρασχεθῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ σ̣ [ο]ῦ πάγου Χαιρή[µο]νι Στεφάνῳ καὶ Σερήνῳ Νε̣µ̣ [ε]σίωνι̣ ἀ̣[π]ὸ τοῦ Ὀξυρυγχείτου καὶ τοῖς τούτου κοινων̣[οῖ]ς πραγµατευταῖς … τὰς ἴσας λίτρας τε̣τ̣ρ̣ α̣ [κισ]χειλίας ὀκτακοσίας πεντήκοντα κτλ. Trans.: make haste to supply from your pagus to Chairemon Stephanos and Serenos Nemesio from Oxyrhynchites, and to their associate agents … the same four thousand eight hundred and fifty litrai (of meat; cf. l. 13) etc.

PSI VII 819 (TM: 17677) Account/report of various taxes Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 311?

Connotation: associate village leader? farmer? l. 3 (cf. l. 6): Ἀπ̣ άµ̣ ων καὶ οἱ κοι(νωνοὶ) ἀπὸ ἐποικ[ίου] κτλ. Trans.: Apamon and his associates from the estate/village (?) of … (?) etc.

P.Mich. XII 652 (TM: 21372) Account of deliveries Provenance?

ca. A.D. 312

Connotation: associate tax-collector? ll. 6–7: ̣[ – ca. ? – ] Λυκαπόλλωνος Ἑρµανουβίωνο̣ [ς – ca. ? – ] καὶ κοι(νωνῶν) ἰνδικτίονος [ – ca. ? – ] Trans.: Lykapollon, son of Hermanoubion … (?) and associates, of the indictio … (?) Biblio.: on the sense of indictio (i.e., land tax), see Berger, EDRL, s.v. indictio, 499.

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

429

O.Mich. I 519 (TM: 42300) Receipt for grain delivery Karanis

A.D. 312

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 2–3: δι(ὰ) Κοπρῆ καὶ Μέλα καὶ τῶν καὶ τῶν κοι(νωνῶν) σι(τολόγων) κτλ. Trans.: Through Kopres and Melas and their sitologoi associates etc. Biblio.: on the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

O.Mich. I 529 (TM: 42310) Receipt for grain delivery Karanis

A.D. 312

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 2–3: δι(ὰ) Ὡρίωνος καὶ τοῦ κυνονοῦ σιτολόγου κτλ. Trans.: through Horion and his sitologoi associates etc. Biblio.: as above.

O.Mich. I 530 (TM: 42311) Receipt for grain delivery Karanis

A.D. 312

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) l. 2: δι(ὰ) σιτολ(όγων) Ὡρίωνος καὶ κοι(νωνοῦ) κτλ. Trans.: through the sitologoi Horion and his associates etc. Biblio.: as above.

P.Cair.Isid. 11 (TM: 10317) Report of the sitologoi Karanis

A.D. 312

Connotation: associate apodektes/sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 3–5 (cf. ll. 72–74): π[αρὰ] Αὐρ[ηλίω]ν Ἀντωνί[ου καὶ Ἰσιδ]ώρου καὶ Οὐενάφρ[εως] [καὶ Ἁρ]π[άλου] καὶ κοι(νωνῶν) ἀπ[ὸ κώµης] Καρανίδος [σιτολό]γ̣ ω̣ ν̣ κτλ. ll. 36–37: καὶ κοι(νωνοῖς) ἀπὸ κώµης [Καρανί]δος ἀποδέκταις Trans.: (ll. 3–5) from Aur. Antonius and Aur. Isidoros and Aur. Onnophris and Aur. (Harpalos?) and associate sitologoi from the (village?) of Karanis etc. Biblio.: on the role of ἀποδέκται and σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 222–252, 50–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

430

Appendix

P.NYU I 4A (TM: 12544) Receipt for grain delivery Karanis

A.D. 312

Connotation: associate apodektes (i.e., collector) ll. 1–2: Αὐρήλιοι Παλ̣ ὲ καὶ Ἀτάµ̣ [µ]ω̣ ν καὶ οἱ κ(οινωνοὶ) ἀποδέκται κτλ. Trans.: Aur. Palos and Aur. Atammon and their associate apodektai etc. Biblio.: on the role of ἀποδέκται, see Oertel, Liturgie, 222–25.

O.Mich. IV 1134 (TM: 14473) (= SB XIV 11521)

Receipt for grain delivery Karanis

A.D. 312–313

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 1–3: Ἐν θη(σαυρῷ) κώ(µης) Καρανίδος δι(ὰ) Κοπρῆ κ[α]ὶ τῶν κοι(νωνῶν) σι(τολόγων) κτλ. Trans.: in the granary of the village of Karanis, through Kopres and his sitologoi associates etc. Biblio.: on the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

O.Mich. I 523 (TM: 42304) Receipt for grain delivery Karanis

A.D. 313

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 3–5: δι(ὰ) Κοπρῆ καὶ τῶν κοι(νωνῶν) σι(τολόγων) κτλ. Trans.: through Kopres and his sitologoi associates etc. Biblio.: as above.

P.Erl.Diosp. 1 (TM: 33368) Account Diospolis Parva Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) l. 274: Ψεκῆτι σιτολ(όγῳ) καὶ κοι(νωνοῖς) (τάλ.) κ̣ ζ κτλ. Trans.: to Psekes the sitologos and his associates, 27 talents etc. Biblio.: as above.

A.D. 313–314

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

431

P.Oxy. XLII 3044 (TM: 16443) Poll-tax receipt Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 313–314

Connotation: associate tax-collector? ll. 8–9: Ἠλίας καὶ ὑ κυ̣ ν̣ ωνοὶ σεσηµείωµε κτλ. Trans.: Elias and his associates have signed etc.

P.Erl.Diosp. 2 (TM: 18197) (= SB XIV 12167)

Account of army supplies Diospolis Parva

A.D. 314

Connotation: associate shepherd ll. 30–31 (cf. l. 35): λογοθεσίου ιη ἰνδικ(τίωνος) π(αρ.) Παῶτι Πχοταπῆτος καὶ κοι(νωνοῖς) ποιµέσι κώµης Πτύτεως λί(τρ.) υια κτλ. Trans.: from the audit of the account (cf. Bagnall and Worp, 234) of the 18th indictio, from Paos, son of Pchotapes, and his associates, shepherds of the village of Ptytis, 411 litrai etc. Biblio.: Bagnall and Worp, ZPE 28 (1978): 231–37.

P.Oxy. XLII 3045 (TM: 16457) Poll-tax receipt A.D. 314–315

Oxyrhynchos Connotation: associate tax-collector? ll. 6–7: Αὐρήλιος Πολιτικὸς καὶ ὑ κυνωνὺ σεσηµιώµεθα. Trans.: we, Aur. Politikos and (my) associate, have signed.

P.Neph. 43 (TM: 21456) Receipts for wheat delivery Neson Kome Connotation: associate apodektes (i.e., collector) l. 1 (cf. l. 15): [Αὐρ]ήλιοι Ἱ̣[έραξ καὶ] κοι(νωνοὶ) ἀποδεκτῶν κτλ. Trans.: Aur. Hierax and the Aur. his associate apodektai etc. Biblio.: on the role of ἀποδέκται, see Oertel, Liturgie, 222–25.

A.D. 315/6 or 330/31

432

Appendix

P.Mich. IX 573 (TM: 12065) Loan of wheat Karanis

A.D. 316

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 18–19 (cf. ll. 22–23): [ὁµολο]γοῦµεν ἔχι[ν] ἅ̣µα τῷ π[ρ]οκίµενον ἡµο͂ ν κοινωνῷ Παννοῦ τὰς τοῦ [πυροῦ] ἀρτάβας τετ[ρα]κοσίας δεκαεπτά κτλ. Trans.: we (sitologoi; cf. l. 5) acknowledge that we have received, together with our aforesaid associate Pannous, four hundred and seventeen artabas of (wheat) etc. Biblio.: on the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

P.Oxy. LV 3790 (TM: 22515) Account Oxyrhynchos

ca. A.D. 317–318

Connotation: associate (in an undetermined business) l. 11: δι(ὰ) Ἀµόϊτος ̣ καὶ κοι(νωνῶν) ιϛ (ἡµις) κτλ. Trans.: through Amois and his associates, litrai 16 1/2 etc.

P.Oslo III 119 (TM: 21550) Receipt of taxes for military clothing Oxyrhynchites

A.D. 319

Connotation: associate tax-collector? l. 3: Χ̣ [ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ἀ̣παι̣(τητοῦ) καὶ κοι(νωνῶν) ὑπ(ὲρ) παλ(λίου) κτλ. Trans.: from Ch… (?), the apaitetes, and his associates for pallium (cloak; cf. LSJ, s.v., πάλλιον) etc. Biblio.: on ἀπαιτηταί see Oertel, Liturgie, 204–207.

P.Sakaon 20 (TM: 13037) (= P.Flor. I 60)

Receipts for wheat delivery Theadelphia

A.D. 319

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 5–6: Αὐρ(ηλίοις) Σελποῦ(τι) καὶ Σακαῶνι καὶ τοῖς κοι(νωνοῖς) σιτολόγοις κώµης Θεαδελφίας κτλ. Trans.: to Aur. Selpous, Aur. Sakaon, and their associates, the sitologoi of the village of Theadelphia etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:816; Bagnall, ZPE (1975): 276–77. On the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

433

P.Sakaon 21 (TM: 44913) (= P.Thead. 31)

Receipts of tax payments Theadelphia

A.D. 319/320

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 1–8 (cf. ll. 14, 30): Αὐρη̣ λίοις Σουλποῦτι καὶ Ἥρωνι καὶ [κ]οι(νωνοῖς) σιτολ(όγοις) Θεαδελφίας κτλ. Trans.: to Aur. Selpous and Aur. Heron and their partners, the sitologoi of Theadelphia etc. Biblio.: Johnson and West, Byzantine Egypt, 153. Cf. Arzt-Grabner, “Onesimus,” in Philemon (ed. Tolmie), 136. On the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

CPR XVIIA 9b (TM: 17705) (= P.Cair.Preis. 4; W.Chr. 379; FIRA2 3.187)

Petition to the strategos and exactor

Hermopolis

A.D. 320

Connotation: partner in crime/accomplice? ll. 4–15: παρὰ Αὐρηλίο̣ υ Ἀδελφί[ο]υ̣ Ἀδελφίου γυµνασ̣ ι̣άρχο[υ] βουλ(ευτοῦ) Ἑρµοῦ πόλ(εως) τῆς λαµπροτάτης. οὐ̣σ̣ ια̣ κὴν γῆν̣ κέκτηµαι πε̣ρὶ Ταροῦθιν ἀπὸ διαδοχῆς τ̣οῦ πατρὸς ἐ̣λθοῦσαν εἰς ἐµέ … Τοῦ τοίνυν καιροῦ καλοῦντος τῆς ̣ συνκοµειδῆς τῶν καρπῶν ἐγενόµην ἐκεῖσε πρὸς τὴν τούτων συλλογήν, ἀλλὰ Σόις καὶ Ἰβόις καὶ ἕτεροι〚δύο〛 \πολλοὶ/ κοινωνοὶ αὐτῶν ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς Ταρούθεως κωµητικῇ αὐθαδίᾳ χρησάµεν[οι] ἐπῆλθον κωλύοντες τοὺς καρπο[ύ]ς κτλ. Trans.: from Aur. Adelphios, son of Adelphios, gymnasiarch and bouleutes of the illustrious Hermopolis. I own an estate near Tarouthis which came to be by inheritance from my father … and since the time of the harvest has now come, I went there to gather the produce, but Sais and Ibois and many other companions of theirs from the same (village) of Tarouthis came upon (me) with rustic insolence and prevented the harvest etc. Trans. (FIRA2 3.187): Cum autem anni tempus ad fructuum perceptionem uocaret, iliuc progressus sum ad eos colligendos: sed Sois et Ibois aliique multi eorum socii ex eodem uico Taruthi rustica insolentia usi superuenerunt fructus me percipere prohibentes. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:816.

434

Appendix

CPR XVIIA 15 (TM: 17712) Petition to the exactor Hermopolis

A.D. 321

Connotation: business partner? associate farmer? partner in crime? ll. 9–11: Ἐπι̣δ̣ ὴ̣ ο̣ ὖν Ἀ̣ν̣ύ̣σιος καὶ Φιβίων καὶ κοινωνοὶ ϛ ἀπ̣ (ὸ) κώµης Πρερὴ ἐ̣π̣ ε [̣ χείρησαν] ἐπιβαίνειν τῇ γῇ κτλ. Trans.: for since Anysis and Phibion and their 6 associates from the village of Prere made an attempt on my land etc.

P.Cair.Isid. 61 (TM: 10391) Receipts for various taxes Karanis

A.D. 323

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 13–14: οἱ κυνονοὶ σιτολόγοι Biblio.: on the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

P.Panop. 27 (TM: 16197) Petition Panopolis

A.D. 323

Connotation: co-owner ll. 7–10: τὸ δὲ πρᾶ[γ]µα οὕτω[ς] ἔχει· ὑπάρχει ἡµῖν οἰκία καὶ ἔπαυλις [ἐ]πὶ τοῦ Ä ἀµφόδου πόλεως πρὸς τοὺς κ[ο]ι̣νωνοὺς [ ̣] ̣ων κατὰ τὰ µέρη κτλ. Trans.: the case is as follows. We own a farm-house over one block of the city with my partners (…?) (each) according to a share etc.

P.Sakaon 51 (TM: 13071) (= P.Thead. 50)

Nomination of sitologoi and apaitetai Theadelphia

A.D. 324

Connotation: associate komarchon (i.e., village elder) ll. 1–6: Φιλώτᾳ πραιποσίτῳ η πάγου παρὰ Σακαῶνος Σαταβοῦτος καὶ τοῦ ἡµετέρου κοινωνοῦ Ἀυο̣ ῦγος Μέλανο[ς] ἀµφοτέρων κωµαρχῶν κώµης Θεαδελφίας κτλ. Trans.: to Philotas, the praepositus of the 8th pagus, from Sakaon, son of Satabous, and my partner Auoug, son of Melanos, both komarchai from the village of Theadelphia etc. Biblio.: on the role of κωµάρχαι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 153–56.

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

435

P.Sakaon 22 (TM: 13038) (= P.Thead. 34; different fragment order)

Receipts for various taxes

Theadelphia

A.D. 324

Connotation: associate komarchon (i.e., village elder) l. 2 (cf. ll. 8, 24, 36): Σακαῶν καὶ ὁ κοι(νωνὸς) κωµάρ(χαι) Θεαδελφίας κτλ. Trans.: Sakaon and his associate, both komarchai of Theadelphia etc. Biblio.: Johnson and West, Byzantine Egypt, 153. On the role of κωµάρχαι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 153–56.

P.Sakaon 24 (TM: 13040) (= P.Thead. 35)

Receipt for the delivery of two labourers Theadelphia

A.D. 325

Connotation: associate komarchon (i.e., village elder) ll. 4–5: Σακ̣ αῶνι καὶ τ[οῦ] κ[οι]νωνοῦ κωµάρ̣ χαις Θεαδελφία κτλ. Trans.: to Sakaon and his partner, both komarchai of Theadelphia etc. Biblio.: Johnson and West, Byzantine Egypt, 153. On the role of κωµάρχαι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 153–56.

P.Oxy. XIV 1626 (TM: 21939) (= Sel.Pap. II 361; FIRA2 3.151)

Transport contract

Paneuei (Oxyrhynchites)

A.D. 325

Connotation: associate dekanos ll. 1–8: Αὐρήλιοι Ἀ̣λ̣ όις Χωοῦτος καὶ Ἡρακλῆ[ς] Πο̣ ύ̣δ̣ε ̣ν̣ τος καὶ οἱ κοινωνοὶ οἱ πάντες δεκανοὶ ἀπὸ κώµη[ς] Πανευεί κτλ. Trans.: Aur. Alois, son of Choous, and Aur. Herakles, son of Pudens, and their associates, all dekanoi from the village of Paneuei etc. Note: the dekanoi here appear to be some kind of chief watchmen (cf. Grenfell and Hunt, P.Oxy. XIV 1626, p. 1; Bagnall, JARC 14 [1977]: 74–76). Biblio.: MM, s.v. κοινωνός, 351; Bagnall, JARC 14 (1977): 74.

436

Appendix

P.Sakaon 25 (TM: 13041) (= P.Thead. 36)

Receipts for labourers and money Theadelphia

A.D. 327

Connotation: associate komarchon/sitologos/epimeletes 1–5: Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλείδης Ἀµµωνίου̣ β̣ ο̣ υ̣ λ(ευτὴς) ἐπιµελητὴς τεχνιτῶ̣ν ἀποστε£οµένω̣ ν ἐν̣ ἀ̣λ̣ α̣ βαστρίῳ Ἀλεξανδρίας Αὐρηλίοις Πίννι κωµάρχῃ κώµης Θεαδελφίας καὶ Καναο̣ ῦ̣γ κοιν(ωνῷ) χα̣ ί̣ρ̣ε ι̣ ν. Cf. l. 14: οἱ κοι(νωνοὶ) σιτολ̣ ό̣γ̣ο̣ ι;̣ ll. 25–26: οἱ κοι(νωνοὶ) α ̣ ἐπιµ(εληταὶ) ἐργατῶν ἀρτοκοπίων Trans.: Aur. Herakleides, son of Ammonios, bouleutes and epimeletes of the workers sent to the alabaster (quarry) of Alexandria, to Aur. Pinnis, the komarchon of the village of Theadelphia, and Aur. Kanaoug, his associate, greetings. ll.

P.Oxy. XLIII 3126 (TM: 16005) Petition to a logistes (i.e., auditor) Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 328

Connotation: co-owner R.1, ll. 3–8: ἐπριάµην παρὰ [Θ]ωνίου Πααντᾶ ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆ[ς Ὀ]ξυρυγχιτῶν πόλεως τὸ ὑπάρξαν αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ πόλει ἐπ’ ἀµφόδου Ἑρµαίου τέταρτον µέρος οἰκίας καὶ τῶν ταύτης ὑποστελλώντων πάντων, ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τῶν τῆς οἰκίας κοινονῶν Ταωρίων καὶ Κοπρία ἐπεκράτουν τοῦτο τὸ µέρος κτλ. Cf. R.2, ll. 8–13: κοινονῶν τῆς οἰκίας … τοὺς τῆς ο[ἰ]κίας κοινουνοὺς Κοπ[ρί]αν καὶ Ταωρίωνα κτλ. Trans.: I bought from Thonios, son of Paantas, from the same city of the Oxyrhynchites, the fourth share of a house formerly (belonging) to him in the same city in the Hermaion ward and all its appurtenances, but (two) of the co-owners of the house, Taorion and Kopria, are in possession of this share etc.

P.Charite 15 (TM: 15575) (= SPP XX 95)

Tax receipts

Hermopolites

A.D. 329

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) l. 2 (cf. ll. 30, 37): καὶ κοι(νωνῶν) σιτολόγων Biblio.: on the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

437

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

CPR VII 15 (TM: 15828) Draft petition Hermopolis

ca. A.D. 330?

Connotation: associate tax-collector? ll. 14–16: [ἐπέρ]χοντ̣α̣[ι] µ̣ οι βουλόµενοι ἐκπράξα̣ [σθαι ἅ]περ ε̣ἴ ̣λη[φα κ]α̣ ὶ̣ διὸ ἐ̣ξεδόµην τῷ κοινωνῷ τ̣ο̣ ύ̣τ̣ων Ὑµισῖ τι[νι τού]ν̣ οµ̣ α̣ \[τὰ το]ῦ̣ ἐ̣[π]ι̣σ̣ ̣ τάλµατος/ εὐσεβῆ τελέσµατα κτλ. Trans.: they came upon me wanting to exact what I had received and so I handed over to their partner, Hymis (by name?), the sacred dues herein mentioned in the petition etc.

SB V 7666 (TM: 17993) Land lease Panopolis

A.D. 330

Connotation: lease partner ll. 4–8: Μεµίσθωµαι παρὰ σοῦ πρὸς ̣ τ̣ὸ̣ ἐ̣ν̣ εστὸς ἔτ[ος] τὸ µέρος σου ἀπὸ νήων (?), ἄ¶α µ[ε]ρ̣[ίσµ(ατα) κα]τ̣ὰ τὸ ἴδ̣ ιο̣ ν δηµητριακῶν καρπῶν φό̣ρ̣ο̣ ν κατὰ τοὺς κοινωνούς, τῶν δηµοσίων πάντων πρὸς σὲ τὸν γεοῦχον. Note: this unusual lease presents a number of difficulties, i.e., a verb or a participle missing in ll. 5–6, and otherwise unattested terms (e.g., δηµητριακῶν). Trans.: I have leased from you for the current year your portion of new land (?), but (fixing?) the shares (?) according to my own (reckoning?) of the produce, (and?) the rent according to the associates, (while) you, the landlord, (is to pay) all public dues. Biblio.: Wegener, Mnemosyne 3.3 (1936): 234–35.

CPR VI 5 (TM: 9876) Collection of receipts A.D. 336–337

Theadelphia Connotation: associate komarchon (i.e., village elder)

ll. 3–4 (cf. ll. 12, 20–21): [Αὐρηλίοις] Ἥ̣ρωνι καὶ οἱ κοι(νωνοῖς) κωµάρχ(αις) [κώµης Θεα]δελφίας. Trans.: to Aur. Heron and associates, komarchai of the village of Theadelphia. Biblio.: Bagnall, BSAC 24 (1982): 115–18. On the role of κωµάρχαι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 153–56.

P.Col. VII 142 (TM: 10496) Receipts for adaeratio Karanis

A.D. 336.

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 10–11: διέγ(ραψαν) ̣ [ – ca. 14 – ] καὶ οἱ κοιν(ωνοὶ) σιτολόγοι ἐξαργυ[ρισµοῦ] κτλ.

438

Appendix

Trans.: (so and so) and his sitologoi partners paid for adaeratio (i.e., cash payment for the annona) etc. Biblio.: on the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

PSI III 202 (TM: 20030) Reports of corporation workers Oxyrhynchos

ca. A.D. 338

Connotation: koinon member ll. 1–5: [Ὀξυρυγχείτου πα]ρ̣ ὰ̣ τ̣ [οῦ κοινοῦ] τ̣ῶν χ̣ο̣ ι ρ̣ ̣ ο̣µ̣ α̣ γ̣είρ̣ ων τῆς αὐτῆς πόλεως δι’ Ἀρτεµιδώρου καὶ Εὐλογίου καὶ κοι(νωνῶν). Trans.: Oxyrhynchite nome, from [the koinon?] of pork butchers of the same city, through Artemidoros and Eulogios and associates. Biblio.: Coles, ZPE 39 (1980): 124–25.

P.Col. VII 148 (TM: 10502) Receipt for wheat delivery Karanis

A.D. 340

Connotation: associate apodektes (i.e., collector) ll. 1–2 (cf. l. 15): Αὐ̣ρ̣ή λιοι Κοπρῆς Παύλου καὶ Ἰ̣ο̣ ύ̣λιος ̣ Σευηρίνου καὶ οἱ κοι(νωνοὶ) ἀποδέκται σίτου πόλεως κτλ. Trans.: Aur. Kopres, son of Paulos, and Aur. Iulius, son of Severinus, and their partners, the receivers of grain for the city etc. Biblio.: on the role of ἀποδέκται, see Oertel, Liturgie, 222–25.

P.Col. VII 149 (TM: 10503) Receipt for wheat delivery Karanis

A.D. 340

Connotation: associate apodektes (i.e., collector) ll. 1–2: Αὐρήλιοι Κοπρῆς Παύλου καὶ ∆ωρόθεος Ἱ̣έ̣ρ̣ α̣ κ̣ ο̣ ς ̣ καὶ κο̣ ι(̣ νωνοὶ) ἀποδέκται σίτου πόλεως κτλ. Trans.: Aur. Kopres, son of Paulos, and Aur. Dorotheos, son of Hierax, and their partners, the receivers of grain for the city etc. Biblio.: as above.

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

439

P.Louvre II 120 (TM: 88786) List of praepositi pagi Hermopolites

ca. A.D. 340

Connotation: associate to a centurion (member of a collegium?) ll. 29–30: Κορνίῳ καὶ κοινωνοῖς (ἑκατοντάρ)χ(ῳ) τῆς καθολικόδητος κτλ. Trans.: to Cornelius, the centurion (in charge) of the rationalis, and his associates etc.

P.Col. VII 154 (TM: 10508) Receipts for wheat deliveries Karanis

A.D. 343

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) l. 14 (cf. l. 19): παρήνεγκαν Παιᾶνος καὶ κοι(νωνοὶ) σιτολ(όγοι) κτλ. Trans.: Paianos and his sitologoi associates delivered etc. Biblio.: on the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

P.Col. VII 155 (TM: 10509 Receipts for wheat deliveries) Karanis

A.D. 343

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) l. 1 (cf. ll. 9, 16): παρήνεγκαν Ἥρων καὶ κοι(νωνοὶ) σιτολ(όγοι) κτλ. Trans.: Heron and his sitologoi associates delivered etc. Biblio.: as above.

P.NYU I 7 (TM: 12548) Receipts for wheat deliveries Karanis Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) l. 12: Ἥρων καὶ κοι(νωνοὶ) σιτ̣ ολ(όγοι) κτλ. Trans.: Heron and his associate sitologoi etc. Biblio.: as above.

A.D. 343

440

Appendix

P.Col. VII 156 (TM: 10510) Receipt for barley delivery Karanis

A.D. 344

Connotation: associate sitometrai (i.e., grain measurer) ll. 6–7: Ἄµµων καὶ Μουσῆς καὶ οἱ κοινωνοὶ σιτοµέτραι ἐµετρήσαµεν κτλ. Trans.: we, Ammon, Mouses, and their sitometrai partners, measured it etc.

P.Col. VII 152 (TM: 10506) Receipt for delivery Karanis

A.D. 345

Connotation: associate apodektes (i.e., collector) l. 31: Αὐρήλιος Ἰσίδωρος Καναοῦτ καὶ οἱ κοινοὶ ἀποδέκτα̣ ι ̣ Καρανίδος κτλ. Trans.: Aur. Isidoros, son of Kanaout, and his partners, receivers of Karanis etc. Biblio.: on the role of ἀποδέκται, see Oertel, Liturgie, 222–25.

P.Col. VII 150 (TM: 10504) Receipt for delivery Karanis

A.D. 347

Connotation: associate hypodektes (i.e., grain receiver) ll. 4–5 (cf. ll. 30, 42–43): Αὐρήλιοι Οὐρ̣ ά̣ν̣ ι ο̣ ̣ ς ̣ [Θεο]δ̣ ώ̣ρ̣ ου καὶ Ἀµµώνιος Ἀπίωνος καὶ κ̣ ο̣ ι ν̣ ̣(ωνοὶ) ὑ̣π̣ο̣ δ̣ έ̣κ̣ τ̣α̣ ι ̣ σ̣ ί̣του πόλεως κτλ. Trans.: Aur. Ouranios, son of Theodoros, and Aur. Ammonios, son of Apion, and their partners, the receivers of grain for the city etc. Biblio.: on the role of ὑποδέκται, see Oertel, Liturgie, 222–25.

P.Ammon I 3 (TM: 23631) (= P.Congr. XV 22)

Private letter

Alexandria/Panopolis

A.D. 348

Connotation: associate in the management of a family estate? Frag. 5, ll. 21–26: πολ̣ υ̣ πρ[α]γµόνε̣ι ̣ ο̣ ὖν περ[ὶ τῶ]ν φόρων κ̣ [αὶ] π̣ έ̣µψον ἐκεῖ τ̣ [ιν]α̣ ἐ̣π̣ ισκέψ̣ α̣ σθαι· καὶ τ̣ [ο]ὺ̣ς ̣ [κ]ο̣ ινωνούς µου̣ [ἤ]δ̣ η µετάπ̣ ε ̣µ̣ [ψα]ι Πολυκράτη τ̣ ε ̣ κ̣ [αὶ] τ̣ὸ̣ν̣ προστά[τη]ν̣ [ὡς] ὑποµνησο̣ [µένο]υ̣ ς ̣ καὶ πε̣ρ̣[ὶ τ]ο̣ ῦ ἡµετέρου … [γρ]άψω δὲ ἤδη [χει]ρ̣ὶ̣ ἰδίαι τοῖς φ[ίλοις ἵνα ἡµῖν κοι]νωνῶ̣[σ]ι̣ περὶ τού[τ]ου. ἐ̣[πεὶ] ἤδη καὶ̣ ὁ και̣[ρὸ]ς ̣ τ̣ ῆ ς συγκοµιδ̣ ῆ [ς – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: So busy yourself about the payments and send someone there to investigate. And send now for my partners Polykrates and the prostates, [that] they may remember about our (…?) … I shall write now of my own hand to my [friends? that they may] associate (?) [with us?] in this (matter). Since now is the time of the harvest etc.

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

441

P.Col. VII 161 (TM: 10515) Receipts for deliveries Karanis

A.D. 351

Connotation: associate hypodektes (i.e., grain receiver) ll. 10–12: Α̣ ὐ̣ρήλ̣ ιοι Οἰσίτωρος Κανα̣ ο̣ ῦ̣τ̣ κ̣ α̣ ὶ̣ Ἀιῶν καὶ κ(οινωνοὶ) ὑποτέ̣κ̣(ται) κώµης Καρανίδος κτλ. Trans.: Aur. Isidoros, son of Kanaout, and Aur. Aion, and their associates, receivers of the village of Karanis etc. Biblio.: on the role of ὑποδέκται, see Oertel, Liturgie, 222–25.

P.Sakaon 10 (TM: 13026) (= P.Thead. 30)

Account of wheat collection Theadelphia

A.D. 352

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 1–4: εἴσπραξις σίτου κώµης Θεαδελφίας vac. υνα ὑπὲρ ι ἰνδι(κτίονος) κωµητο͂ ν δ(ιὰ) σιτολ(όγων) Ἥρωνος καὶ Ἀῦγ καὶ Ἐσούριος καὶ κοι(νωνῶν) κτλ. Trans.: collection of wheat for the village of Theadelphia … (?) for the 10th indictio, (to the account) of the villagers through the sitologoi Heron, Aug, Esoeris, and their associates etc. Biblio.: on the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

P.Oxy. LX 4090 (TM: 22570) Petition Oxyrhynchites

A.D. 352

Connotation: associate in undetermined business? partner in crime? ll. 10–14: ἀ£ὰ βουλοµ̣ έ̣νου µου ἀ̣νοικοδοµῆσαι καὶ ἐπανυειν (= ἐπανοίγειν) θύρα(ν) ο̣ ὐ̣κ οἶδα̣ τ̣ ί̣ν̣ ι ̣ λ̣ ό̣γ̣ ῳ Πραοῦς καὶ Πιβῆκις καὶ ο[ἱ] [αὐ]τ̣ῶ̣ν κοινω̣ [νο]ὶ̣ ἐπ̣ έσχαν µαι καὶ ἐκώλυσα̣ ν̣ [ ̣ ̣] κτλ. Trans.: but when I wanted to rebuild (a house) and open a door, I do not know for what reason, Praous and Pibekis and their associates restrained me and prevented … (?) etc.

442

Appendix

P.Kell. I 23 (TM: 20288) Petition Kellis (Oasis Magna)

A.D. 353

Connotation: associate komarchon (i.e., village elder) ll. 9–10: Κατασχεθέντος δὲ ὑπ’ ἐµοῦ καὶ τοῦ κοινωνοῦ [µ]ου Γενᾶ τοῦ ἄλλου κωµάρχου κτλ. Trans.: while being held by me and my partner Gena, the other komarchon etc. Biblio.: on the role of κωµάρχαι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 153–56.

P.Mich. XX 821 (TM: 140162) List of grain taxes Oxyrhynchos

ca. A.D. 355–375

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) l. 6: κοι(νωνοὶ) σιτ̣ ολόγ(οι) Biblio.: on the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

P.Oxy. XLVIII 3390 (TM: 22486) Payment order Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 358

Connotation: associate jurist or notary ll. 1–2: Πατᾶς \καὶ κοι(νωνοὶ)/ νοµικ(οὶ) Παπνουθίῳ ἀδλφ(ῷ) χαίρειν. Trans.: Patas and his associate jurists (notaries?) to Papnouthis, (his) brother, greetings.

P.Oxy. LXVII 4606 (TM: 78648) Agreement to deliver wheat Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 361

Connotation: associate epimeletes (i.e., curator) l. 20: [Αὐρήλιος – ca. 8 – σ]υ̣ [µπ]αρίºηφα ἅ̣µ̣ α τ̣ο̣ ῖς κο̣ ι (̣ νωνοῖς) καὶ συνπ̣ α̣ ρ̣ α̣ δ̣ ώ̣[σω – ca. ? – ] Trans.: I received (the wheat) together with my associates and will jointly deliver … (?) Biblio.: on the role of ἐπιµεληταί, see Oertel, Liturgie, 214–21.

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

443

P.Oxy. LXVII 4612 (TM: 78654) Agreement to deliver wheat Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 363

Connotation: associate epimeletes (i.e., curator) l. 17: Αὐρήλιος Σαρ[απίων Πλου]τ̣ά̣[ρ]χ̣ο̣[υ] συνπαρείληφα ἅµα τοῖς κοι(νωνοῖς) κτλ. Trans.: I, Aur. Sarapion (?) Plutarch (?), received (the wheat) together with my associates etc. Biblio.: as above.

SB XXII 15311 (TM: 15502) (= SB XIV 11972)

Fragmentary list of tax payments Hermopolites

A.D. 367–368

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) l. 2 (cf. ll. 23, 27, 30): Π[α]ήσιος καὶ κοι(νωνῶν) σιτολ(όγων) κτλ. Trans.: from Paesis and his associate sitologoi etc. Biblio.: on the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

P.Mich. XX 806 (TM: 18185) Official declaration by town councillors A.D. 369

Oxyrhynchos Connotation: associate epimeletes (i.e., curator)

ll. 4–5: Αὐρηλίοις ̣ Σ̣ αραπίωνι Πλουτάρχου καὶ Θέωνι̣ [Ἀµµων?]ίου καὶ Εὐλογίῳ Πτολεµαίου καὶ τοῖς κοινωνοῖς [ἐπιµε]ληταῖς κριθῶ̣ν Ἀλεξανδρίας κτλ. Trans.: to Aur. Sarapion, son of Ploutarchos, Aur. Theon, son of [Ammonios?], Aur. Eulogios, son of Ptolemaios, and their associates, epimeletai of barley for Alexandria etc. Biblio.: on the role of ἐπιµεληταί, see Oertel, Liturgie, 214–21.

P.Leid.Inst. 62 (TM: 18485) Declaration of a systates (i.e., official) Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 370–400

Connotation: associate carpet weaver (member of a collegium?) ll. 2–4: Κυρίῳ µου ἀδελφῷ Ἀλεξάνδρου µινιάρχης καὶ κυνονοῖς ἐργασίας ταπιταρίον κτλ. Trans.: to my Lord and brother Alexandros, monthly president, and his carpet-weaver associates etc.

444

Appendix

P.Mich. XX 809 (TM: 140153) Agreement to deliver wheat Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 372

Connotation: associate sitologos (i.e., grain collector) ll. 35–36 (cf. ll. 32, 45): δι(ὰ) Θεοδώρου καὶ Ἰωάννου καὶ κοι(νωνῶν) σιτολ(όγων) κτλ. Trans.: through Theodoros and Ioannes and their associate sitologoi etc. Biblio.: on the role of σιτολόγοι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 250–57; Lallemand, L’administration, 207.

P.Mich. XX 816 (TM: 15703) (= P.Turner 45)

Letter of the praefectus annonae of Alexandria Alexandria/Oxyrhynchos?

A.D. 374

Connotation: associate epimeletes (i.e., curator) ll. 24–25 (cf. l. 6): Αὐρήλιος Σεραπίων ἐπιµελητὴς ἔσχον ἅµα τοῖς κοι(νωνοῖς) τὴν ἐπενεχθῖσαν ὑπὸ σοῦ αὐθεντικὴν ἀποχὴν τοῦδε τοῦ ἀντιτύπου κτλ. Trans.: I, Aur. Serapion, epimeletes, have received together with my associates the original receipt of which you presented this copy etc. Biblio.: on the role of ἐπιµεληταί, see Oertel, Liturgie, 214–21.

P.Oxy. XIV 1752 (TM: 22003) Payment order Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 378

Connotation: business partner (sawyer) ll. 1–3: π(αρὰ) Κλήµ(εντος) Λευκαδίου διὰ τῆς µητρὸς Νείºῳ οἰνοχιρ(ιστῇ) χα(ίρειν). παρασχοῦ Πτολεµα̣ ίῳ καὶ τῷ κοινωνῷ πρίσταις εἰς λόγον δαπάνης ἀνανεώσεως τοῦ πλοίου τὸ πρὶν ὑπὸ Ἀπφοῦν οἰνου κνίδιον διπλοῦν ἕν κτλ. Trans.: from Clement, son of Leukadios, through his mother, to Neilos, the dispenser of wine, greetings. Pay to Ptolemaios and his partner, the sawyers, on account of the expenditures (incurred) for the repair of the ship before by Apphous: one double knidion of wine etc. Biblio.: Bagnall, Egypt Late Antiquity, 36 (n.148), 82 (n. 221).

BGU III 974 (TM: 20095) (= W.Chr. 423)

Counter-receipt Antaiopolis Connotation: associate distributor of army supplies ll. 3–4: Αὐρηλίοις Ἑρµείας Σαραπάµµωνος καὶ κοι(νωνοῖς) διαδόταις κτλ.

A.D. 380

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

445

Trans.: to Aur. Hermeias, son of Sarapammon, and (his) associate distributors (of army supplies) etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:816. On the role of διαδόται, see Oertel, Liturgie, 221–22; Lallemand, L’administration, 216–17.

P.Lips. I 21 (TM: 22338) Land lease Hermopolis

A.D. 382

Connotation: co-owner ll. 8–15: βούλοµαι ἑκουσίως καὶ αὐθαιρέτως µισθώσασθαι παρά σου ἀπὸ καρπῶν τῆς εὐτυχ[οῦ]ς ἐννάτ[η]ς ἰνδικτίονο[ς] τὸ ὑπάρχον σοι ἕκτον µέρος ἀπὸ ἀρουρῶν τεσσάρων ἡµίσο̣ υς ἢ ὅσαι ἐὰν ὦ[σ]ι ἐν τῷ εδει (= ἐδάφει) περὶ Θ̣ ύνειν κατὰ κο[ι]νωνίαν Κοννάρου κοινωνοῦ̣ [ἐπὶ] τῶν λοιπῶν µερῶν κτλ. Trans.: I wish to lease voluntarily and of my own free will from you, from the harvest of the fortunate ninth indictio, a sixth part of the four and one-half arouras belonging to you, or as many as there may be, in the land by Thune, (which is owned in common) with Konnaros (your) partner as to the remaining portions etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:816.

P.Cair.Isid. 26 V (TM: 32802) List of names Karanis

early A.D. IV

Connotation: undetermined associate l. 1: κο̣ ι (̣ νωνοὶ) Ἰσίδωρος Πτο[λεµαίου – ca. ? – ] (list of names) Trans.: partners of Isidoros, son of Ptolemaios etc.

P.Mich. XII 647 (TM: 33529) Receipt for a delivery of barley (tax) Philadelphia

early A.D. IV

Connotation: associate apodektes and praktor (i.e., tax collectors) ll. 1–7: Αὐρήλιοι Αὐνῆς καὶ Ἀπολινά̣ρ̣[ιος καὶ] οἱ̣ κοι̣(νωνοὶ) καὶ Ἀῆς καὶ [Ἰ]σίδω̣ ρος καὶ οἱ κοι(νωνοὶ) καὶ Κοπρῆς καὶ Πανισάτη̣ ς ̣ καὶ Κανολῆ̣ς ̣ καὶ Πατᾶς ἀµφότεροι ἀποδέκται ὅρµου Λευκογίου Αὐρηλίοις Ἀκάς καὶ Πεκύσεως καὶ Πτολεµαίο[ς] καὶ οἱ κοι(νωνοὶ) πράκτωρες κώ(µης) Φιλαδελφίας κτλ. Trans.: Aur. Aunes, Aur. Apolinarios, and their associates, and Aes, Isidoros, and their associates, and Kopres, Panisates, Kanoles, and Patas, all apodektai of the harbour of Leukogion, to Aur. Akas, Aur. Pekysis, Aur. Ptolemaios, and their associate taxcollectors of the village of Philadelphia etc.

446

Appendix

O.Mich. I 627 (TM: 42412) List of names (liturgical workers?) Karanis?

Early A.D. IV

Connotation: associate liturgist? ll. 4–5: Παῆσης καὶ Ἡρᾶς {καὶ} καὶ οἱ κοινωνο̣ ί̣ κτλ. Trans.: Paeses and Heras and their associates etc.

P.Oxy. XLVI 3307 (TM: 32497) List of epoikion settlers Oxyrhynchos

Early A.D. IV

Connotation: lease partner? co-owner? l. 19 (cf. l. 20): τοῦ α(ὐτοῦ) ἐποικ(ίου), Πτολεµαίου καὶ τῶν κοι(νωνῶν) κτλ. Trans.: of the same estate, from Ptolemaios and his associates etc.

O.Mich. I 582 (TM: 42363) List of names (liturgical workers?) Early A.D. IV

Karanis? Connotation: associate tax-collector

l. 1: κεφ(αλαιωτὴς) Μέλας Ὥρου κ(αὶ) οἱ κοι(νωνοί) κτλ. Trans.: Melas, son of Horos, (chief) tax-collector (i.e., capitularius), and his associates etc. Biblio.: on the role of the κεφαλαιωταί, see Oertel, Liturgie, 225–29; Bagnall, SPap 17.1 (1978): 49–54; Lallemand, L’administration, 210–11.

SB XXIV 16000 (TM: 32643) (= SB VIII 9902)

Building inventory Panopolis

early A.D. IV

Connotation: co-owner? l. 25: ἄλ(λη) ἐπιγώνιος Ἀπολλωνίδου καὶ κοι(νωνῶν) Cf. ll. 43, 44, 48, 50, 53, 107, 221, 246, 255, 256, 261, 313, 323, 328, 335, 338, 356, 408, 457, 539, 544, 546, 548, 565, 628, 656, 661. Trans.: at another corner, Apollonidos and associates.

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

447

P.Berl.Zill. 4 (TM: 17284) Court proceedings Hermopolis

mid-A.D. IV

Connotation: joint heir ll. 23–24: Strategi(us) v(i)r p(erfectissimus) comes pres(es) Thebei(dos) d(ixit): εἰ δειχθείη κοινωνὸς ὢν τῆς κληρονοµίας παρὰ το[ῖς] αὐτοῖς, ἀποδώσει ἃ µόνος καταβέβληκας ὑπὲρ τῶν χρεωστουµένων·κτλ. Trans.: The most excellent strategus, comes and praeses of Thebais, said: if he may be proven to be a joint-heir by these, he shall repay only that which you have paid for the debts etc.

P.Panop. 14 (TM: 32564) (= SB XII 10981)

Land register

Panopolis

A.D. IV

Connotation: co-owner and/or associate greengrocer ll. 8–9 (cf. ll 13–14, 20, 35): Θεωνᾶ ∆ιδύµου καὶ κοι(νωνῶν) λαχ(ανείας) (ἄρουρα) α η´ κτλ. Trans.: Theonas, son of Didymos, and his associate(s) greengrocer(s) etc.

PSI V 452 (TM: 33127) Petition Oxyrhynchos

A.D. IV

Connotation: co-owner (joint-heir) ll. 7–11 (cf. ll. 6, 24): πρὸς τοῖς γοῦν καταλει[φθ]εῖσιν ἡµῖν ὑπὸ τῶν ἡµετέρων γονέων ἐµοί τε [καὶ τῷ ἀδελ]φ̣ ῷ Εὐστοχίῳ καὶ ἀνδράπ[οδ]α περιῆλθεν εἰς ἡµᾶς ἀµφοτέρους ἐξ ἴσου µέρους … . [ἀλλὰ συµβέβ]ηκεν τοῦς παρὰ τῷ κοινω̣ ν̣ ῷ ὄντας οἰκέτας Ἀνατόλιον καὶ Μακαρίαν κτλ. Trans.: being formerly bequeathed to me and my brother, Eustochios, by our parents, the slaves came to us both in equal share … [but it happened that?] the house slaves of my partner, Anatolios and Makaria etc. Biblio.: Bagnall, Egypt Late Antiquity, 210.

448

Appendix

O.Heid. 445 (TM: 80643) Fragment of an account statement Thebes?

A.D. IV

Connotation: associate farmer ll. 1–2: λό(γος) ἄρακ(ος) τῆς λί̣µνη[ς] Σελαν̣η ς καὶ κοι(νωνῶν) vac. ? κτλ. Trans.: account of arakos (i.e., leguminous plant) of the lake of Selanes and his associates etc.

P.Lond. V 1653 (TM: 33185) Register of rent payments Panopolites

A.D. IV

Connotation: associate tax-collector l. 19: κλῆ(ρος) Ἁτρῆτος [κε]φαλαιωτ(οῦ) καὶ κοι(νωνῶν) κτλ. Trans.: lot of Hatres, (chief) tax-collector (i.e., capitularius), and his associates etc. Biblio.: on the role of the κεφαλαιωταί, see Oertel, Liturgie, 225–29; Bagnall, SPap 17.1 (1978): 49–54; Lallemand, L’administration, 210–11.

P.Neph. 46 (TM: 33586) Receipt Neson Kome

A.D. IV

Connotation: associate apodektes (i.e., collector) l. 1: Παρίτιο̣ [ς] καὶ κοι(νωνοὶ) ἀποδεκτῶν κτλ. Trans.: Paritios and (his) associate apodektai etc. Biblio.: on the role of ἀποδέκται, see Oertel, Liturgie, 222–25.

P.Oxy. XII 1590 (TM: 33660) Private letter Oxyrhynchites

A.D. IV

Connotation: business partner (irrigator) ll. 7–11: ἐὰν ἰ[σ]χύσητε πεῖσαι Ἀφῦγχιν καὶ τὸν κοινωνὸν αὐτοῦ τοὺς ὑδροπαρόχ[ους] τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀµπελουργικ[ῶ]ν µισ[θω]τὰς γενέσθαι ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν ὑδροπαροχισµῶν ποιοῦσι κτλ. Trans.: if you are able to persuade Aphynchis and his partner, the irrigators of Okeanos, and to lease also for the vine-dressing just as they do the irrigation work etc. Biblio.: Steinwenter, “Gesellschaftsrechte,” in Studi Riccobono (ed. Riccobono), 489 (n. 11); Rowlandson, Landowners, 230; Kloppenborg, Tenants, 549.

449

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

P.Oxy. XLVIII 3396 (TM: 33708) Private letter Oxyrhynchos

A.D. IV

Connotation: associate landlord (co-owner?) ll. 15–16: ὁ ἡγεµὼν ἔγραψεν πρὸς τὼν γεοῦχων (= τὸν γεοῦχον) Σαραπάµµωνος καὶ τὼ κοινονὼ (= τὸν κοινωνὸν) αὐτοῦ κτλ. Trans.: the praeses wrote to Sarapammon’s landlord and his associate etc.

P.Münch. III 138 (TM: 33551) List of military equipment? Provenance?

A.D. IV

Connotation: associate epimeletes (i.e., curator) ll. 4–5: δι’ Ἀνουβίωνος Ἀνουβᾶ καὶ Ἀµµω̣ [ν – ca. ? – ] καὶ κοινωνῶν ἐπιµελ(ητῶν) ὑπὲρ [ – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: through Anoubion, son of Anouba, and Ammon … (?), and their associate epimeletes over … (?) etc. Biblio.: on the role of ἐπιµεληταί, see Oertel, Liturgie, 214–21.

P.Lips. I 24 (TM: 33698) Land lease Hermopolis?

A.D. IV

Connotation: lease partner ll. 13–15: ὁ αὐτὸς Παῦλος ἔγραψα ὑπὲρ τῶν κοινωνῶν µου γράµ\µα/τα µὴ ε[ἰδότων]. Trans.: I, Paul, wrote for my illiterate partners. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:816.

P.Bad. II 31 (TM: 33128) List of household members Provenance? Connotation: life partner? ll. 22–24 (cf. l. 14): Ἰσίδωρος Μεθαίτης καὶ ὁ κοιν̣ ονός κτλ. Trans.: Isidoros, son of Mathaites, and his partner etc.

Late A.D. IV

450

Appendix

O.Bodl. II 2103 (TM: 72778) Delivery order Thebes

A.D. IV–V

Connotation: associate tax-collector ll. 1–3: Π(αρὰ) τῶν ἐξ ̣̣(ακτόρων) Τανσνῶς κα̣ ὶ κοινονοί κτλ. Trans.: from the exactor Tansnos and his associates etc.

O.Bodl. II 2104 (TM: 72779) Payment order Thebes

A.D. IV–V

Connotation: associate distributor of army supplies? ll. 1–2: Π(αρὰ) τοῦ δ(ιαδότου) Μ̣ ενῆς καὶ κοι(νωνοί) κτλ. Trans.: from the distributor (of army supplies) to Menes and his associates. Etc.

BGU III 749 (TM: 33236) Undetermined fragment A.D. IV–VII

Arsinoites Connotation: co-owner?

ll. 6–8: [ – ca. ? – ] ̣ ̣ ἥµισυ µέρος τῶν εἰρηµένων µενηµάτω(ν) [ – ca. ? – ἐπ]αύλεως ἀνήκει τοῖς σοῖς κοινωνοῖς τοῦ µ̣ ε ̣ ̣ [ – ca. ? – κληρ]ονόµοις τοῦ µακαρίτου Ὀλυµπίου κτλ. Trans.: a half portion of the aforesaid rooms … (?) of the village belongs to your associates … (?) heirs (?) of the blessed Olympias etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:816; Steinwenter, “Gesellschaftsrechte,” in Studi Riccobono (ed. Riccobono), 489 (n. 11); Berger, ZVR 29 (1913): 329, 374.

SB I 5314 & 5315 (TM: 34001) Private letter Provenance?

A.D. IV–VII?

Connotation: sense and context unclear ll. 16–18: τοῦ ὑποδ[ – ca. ? – ] πάντα ἐνγραφέντα τῷ τοῦ κοινωνοῦ καὶ µηδὲ ἀκοῦσαι ἔτι τι περὶ τῶν [ – ca. ? – ] ἔχειν µὲν ὁς ἀληθὸν κτησε[ – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: … (?) all the things inscribed to (…?) of the partner and not to hear still something about (…?) etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:816.

451

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

P.Mert. I 41 (TM: 21307) Payment orders Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 406

Connotation: associate farmer l. 4 (cf. l. 15): Ψύρου καὶ Βά̣νους καὶ κοι(νωνῶν) γεωρ(γῶν) κτλ. Trans.: from Psyros and Bane and their associate farmers etc.

SPP VIII 1192 (TM: 35685) Annona, pp. 537–38, #183) Payment order

(Cf. rev. ed. Mitthof, Herakleopolites (?)

A.D. V

Connotation: associate distributor of army supplies l. 1 (Mitthof): Παχῶτ ἀκτουάρ(ιος) Σαραποδώρῳ καὶ κοινωνοῖς διαδ(όταις) κτλ. Trans.: Pachot, actuarius, to Sarapodoros and associate diadotai etc. Biblio.: on the διαδόται see also Oertel, Liturgie, 221–22; Lallemand, L’administration, 216–17.

P.Stras. VIII 778 (TM: 35033) Petition? Provenance?

Late A.D. V

Connotation: sense unclear (papyrus very fragmented) l. 8: [ – ca. ? – ]ι̣ουτ̣ ι ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινωνοῦ τοῦ [ἐλ]α̣ χίστου µου κτήµα(τος) κτλ. Trans.: … (?) concerning the partner of the smallest of my properties etc.

BGU XIX 2817 (TM: 91726) Lease of an oil press Hermopolis

A.D. 500

Connotation: co-owner ll. 5–11: ὁµολογῶ ἑκουσίως καὶ α[ὐ]θ̣ α̣ ι [̣ ρέτως µεµισθῶσθαι παρὰ τῆς σῆς] λ̣ [αµπρότ]ητο[ς] … [τὸ ὑπά]ρχον σοι τρίτον τετρακαιεικοστὸν µέρος ὁλοκλήρου ἐλ[αι]ου̣ [ργείου …] … κ[ατὰ κοινωνίαν – ca. ? – ] ̣ ̣ Σ̣ αραπίωνος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν κοινωνῶ̣ν κτλ. Trans.: I acknowledge [to have let] voluntarily and [of my own free will from your illustriousness?] … a third and twenty-fourth share of the whole oil press that belongs to you … (which is) [owned in common?] with Sarapion and the other associates etc.

452

Appendix

SB XX 14669 (TM: 23784) (= P.Freer 1 und 2)

Byzantian cadastre Antaiopolites

A.D. 524

Connotation: co-owner l. 8: [κλ(ηρονόµοι)] Τιµοθέου Ἀντᾶ Ουωε δ(ιὰ) Θεοδ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ (καὶ) λ̣ οι(ποὶ) κοιν(ωνοί) κτλ. Trans.: [heirs] of Timotheos, son of Anta, son of Ouοe through (expulsion?) of Theod. … (?) and the other co-owners etc. Biblio.: Gascou and MacCoull, T&MBYZ 10 (1987): 103–58 (esp. 108); Gascou, Fiscalité, 247–305 (esp. 252); MacCoull, GRBS 50 (2010): 625–38.

PSI VIII 931 (TM: 17592) Lease of land Antaiopolites

A.D. 524

Connotation: lease partner ll. 9–18: Μεµισθώµεθα … τὸ ὑπάρχον σοι ἥµισυ µέρος … κατὰ τὰ τρία \κατὰ µέρος/ κοινῶν πρὸς τὰς ἀρούρας σου κοινω̣ νούς κτλ. Trans.: we have leased … half of your property … in common, each partner according to a third share of arouras etc.

P.Flor. III 297 (TM: 19352) (Cf. rev. ed. Zuckerman, Du village à l'Empire, 248–71)

Byzantian fiscal registry

Antaiopolites

A.D. 525/526

Connotation: co-owner l. 367/548 (Zuckerman): Βίκτωρ Πανίσκου καὶ κοινον(οὶ) κερ´(ατίου)  κτλ. Cf. ll. 160, 428, 445, 448, 457 (Zuckerman). Trans.: Victor Panisko and associates, 1/2 keration etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:816.

P.Stras. IV 247 (TM: 16979) Lease of a share of a house Hermopolis

A.D. 551

Connotation: co-owner (communio pro indiviso) ll. 6–13: Ὁµολογῶ ἑκουσίως καὶ [αὐθαιρέτως µεµισθῶσθαι παρ’ ὑµῶν ἐφ’ ὅσον βούλεσθε] χρόνον … τὸ ὑπάρχον ὑµῖν ἐπιβάλλον καὶ [ – ca. ? – µέρος ὁλοκλή]ρου οἰκίας οἵας ἐστὶν διαθέσεως µονοστέγου [ – ca. ? – ].ης καὶ ἀδιαιρέ̣του κατὰ κοινωνείαν ἐµοῦ τοῦ [ – ca. ? – Κολ]λούθου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων κοινωνῶν ὑπὲρ τῶν [ – ca. ? – ] κτλ.

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

453

Trans.: I acknowledge [to have leased] voluntarily and [of my own free will from you, for as long as you wish] … a [share of the whole?] one-storey house belonging to you, as it is disposed … (?), and (owned) undivided in common with me son of Kollouthes (?) and with the other co-owners etc.

P.Horak 10 (TM: 78366) Land lease Hermopolites

A.D. 555

Connotation: co-owner ll. 7–14: ὁµολογῶ ἑκουσίως καὶ αὐθαιρέτως [µεµισθῶσθαι παρὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἁγίων µαρτυρίων ἐπὶ τρ]ι̣ετῆ χρόνον … ἀρούρας ἑπτὰ τρίτον σπορίµης γῆς … [ – ca. 22 – καὶ παντὸς δικαίου τοῦ αὐτοῦ γε]ω̣ ργίου καλουµένου Τβωτη ἀρουρῶν τριάκοντα [ – ca. 45 – ἀδι]αιρέτου κατὰ κοινωνείαν τῶν ἄλλων κοινωνῶν [ – ca. 48 – ]ος κτλ. Trans.: I acknowledge [to have leased] voluntarily and of my own free will [from the holy martyrion for] three years … seven and a third arouras of seed land … [… and of every right of the same] field called Tbote, 30 arouras … , owned in common undivided with the other partners … (?) etc.

P.Oxy. XVI 1911 (TM: 22041) Estate account (from Apion’s archive) A.D. 557

Oxyrhynchos Connotation: co-owner? lease partner?

Col. 2, l. 46: π(αρὰ) Γερµ[α]νοῦ καὶ Ὥρου καὶ κοιν(ωνῶν) νο(µίσµατα) β κτλ. Cf. ll. 7, 17, 26, 48, 49, 122, 146. Trans.: from Germanes and Horos and his associates, two nomismata etc. Biblio.: Mazza, ZPE 122 (1998): 161–72 (col. 1 & 2, ll. 29–42). On Apion’s family and archive, see Hardy, Large Estates, 25–38 (esp. p. 34); Azzarello, “Apioni,” in Proceedings 25th (ed. Gagos), 33–46.

SB XX 15136 (TM: 23889) Land lease Hermopolites

A.D. 557/558

Connotation: co-owner? ll. 8–15: [Ὁµολογῶ ἑκουσίως κα]ὶ̣ αὐθ〚ε〛αιρέτως µεµισ[θῶσθαι παρ’ ὑµῶν] … [τὸ ὑπάρχον ὑ]µ̣ ῖν ἀρούρης ἥµισυ [ – ca. ? – ] ἀπὸ ἀρουρῶν δύο . [ – ca. ? – κατὰ κοινωνία]ν τῶν ἄλλων κοινω[νῶν ὑπὲρ τῶν ὑπολοίπω]ν ἀρουρῶν κτλ. Trans.: [I agree voluntarily and] of my own free will to lease [from you] … a half aroura … from two arouras [… owned in common?] with the other partners (as to the remaining?) arouras etc. Biblio.: Kruse, ZPE 88 (1991): 133–35.

454

Appendix

P.Oxy. LV 3804 (TM: 22526) Annual estate account Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 566

Connotation: associate farmer (oil producer) l. 27: π(αρὰ) κληρ(ονόµων) Θεοδώρου καὶ κοιν(ωνῶν) κτλ. l. 265: Σαµουήλιον ἐλαιουρ(γὸν) καὶ κοιν(ωνούς) Cf. ll. 50, 52, 59, 63, 64, 69, 77, 87, 97, 103, 117, 119, 120, 129, 182, 183, 193, 206, 207, 212, 282. Trans.: (l. 27) from the heirs of Theodoros and associates (l. 265) Samuelion, the oil producer, and associates etc.

P.Oxy. LV 3805 (TM: 22527) Estate account Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 566

Connotation: associate farmer l. 72: δ(ιὰ) Ἀπολλῶ καὶ κοιν(ωνῶν) ἀπὸ Μικρ(ᾶς) Παρορίου ὑ(πὲρ) τῶν σπειροµ(ένων) π(αρὰ) αὐ(τῶν) γῃδίων κτλ. Trans.: through Apollo and associates from Mikras Paroriou for lands being sown etc.

P.Cair.Masp. II 67158 (TM: 18914) (= FIRA2 3.158)

Partnership contract Antinoopolis

A.D. 568

Connotation: business partner (carpenter) ll. 10–13: ὁ[µ]ολογοῦµεν ἡµεῖς οἱ προγεγραµµένοι Ψόϊς Ἰσακίο(υ) λεπτουργὸς καὶ ἀνὴ̣ρ τυγχάνων τῆς θυγατρὸς Ἰωσ̣ [η]φίο(υ) [καὶ Τικολλο(ύ)θου τῶ]ν συνκοινωνῶν µο(υ) τῇ το̣ (ῦ) Θεοῦ προνοίᾳ κα̣ ὶ̣ συµπραγµατευτῶν µο(υ), κἀγὼ α̣ ὐτὸς Ἰωσῆφις ὁ προρηθεί[ς] … συνεργάζασθαι ἀ£ήλοις εἰς τὴν κοινὴν ἡµῶν πραγµατείαν̣ κτλ. Trans.: we, the aforementioned Psais, son of Isak, carpenter and present husband of the daughter of Joseph [and Tikollouthos], my partners and fellow-workers by the foreknowledge of God, and I myself, the aforesaid Joseph, … agree to work together in this joint-enterprise etc. Trans. (FIRA2 3.158): Declaramus nos suprascripti, (scilicet ego) Psois Isaaci filius faber lignarius maritus constitutes filiae Iosephi et Ticolluthae Dei gratia sociorum consortium que meorum, et ego Ioseph praedictus, … , operam coniunctim daturos nos esse in communi nostro artificio etc. Biblio.: Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 21; Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 76; Montevecchi, La papirologia, 225.

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

455

P.Oxy. XVIII 2195 (TM: 22169) Estate account (from Apion’s archive) Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 576/577?

Connotation: co-owner? l. 40 (cf. l. 41): π(αρὰ) κληρ(ονόµων) Παµουθίο(υ) Μαξίµου [τοῦ] Παµουθίο(υ) καὶ κοινων(ῶν) σίτου (ἀρτ.) πα κτλ. Trans.: (l. 40) from the heirs of Pamouthios Maximos, son of Pamouthios, and his associates, 81 artabas of grain etc. Biblio.: Johnson and West, Byzantine Egypt, 153. On Apion’s family and archive, see Hardy, Large Estates, 25–38 (esp. p. 34).

P.Oxy. XIX 2243 A (TM: 22191) Estate account Oxyrhynchites

A.D. 590

Connotation: associate presbyteros (i.e., village elder) l. 15 (cf. ll. 1, 21, 23, 31–33): π(αρὰ) Ἰωάννου πρε(σβυτέρου) καὶ κοιν̣(ωνῶν) δ(ιὰ) Π̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] π̣ ρ(ονοητοῦ) Ἀµατ̣ ή νης [νο(µίσµατα).]α̣ κτλ. Trans.: from Ioannes, the presbyteros, and (his) associates, through P… (?), supervisor, Amatenes, 1 nominasta 1 (?) etc. Biblio.: on the role of πρεσβύτεροι, see Oertel, Liturgie, 146–53.

P.Gron. 5 (TM: 35709) List of (tax?) payments Provenance?

A.D. V–VI

Connotation: co-owner? lease partner? l. 11: π(αρὰ) Πατᾶς καὶ κοινω[νῶν – ca. ? – ] Trans.: from Patas and associates …?

P.Oxy. XVI 1917 (TM: 37882) Receipts from estates Oxyrhynchos

early A.D. VI

Connotation: associate presbyteros/farmer/soldier (?) ll. 5–6: Τίττος πρεσβ(ύτερος) καὶ Ἀφύγχιος διάκ(ονος) καὶ κοι(νωνοὶ) πρωτοκ(ωµῆται?) κτλ. Cf. l. 7: Ἀνοῦπ Ἰωάννου καὶ κοι(νωνοί); l. 23: Ἰωάννης πρεσβ(ύτερος) καὶ κοι(νωνοί); l. 32; Ἀσωτᾶς σύµµαχος καὶ κοι(νωνοί); ll. 81–82: Ἀνοῦπ καὶ κοι(νωνοὶ) ἀµ(πελουργοί) … Ἀσώεις καὶ Παῦλος καὶ κοι(νωνοὶ) [γ]εωρ(γοί). Trans.: Tittos, presbyteros, and Aphynchis, deacon and associate village chief etc.

456

Appendix

O.Ashm.Shelt. 35 (TM: 70587) Tax Receipt Provenance?

A.D. VI

Connotation: business partner (potter) ll. 1–3: ὀνό(µατος) Ζαχαρίας κερ̣(αµέως?) κ̣ αὶ κοινων̣(ῶν) ἀπὸ Τριφ( ) κτλ. Trans.: in the name of Zacharias the potter and his associates from Triph etc.

SB III 6268 (TM: 36668) Property division Provenance?

A.D. VI

Connotation: sense unclear ll. 3–4: ὥστε καὶ τὸ γεώργιο̣ [ν] τὸ δι̣α̣ κείµ[ενον – ca. ? – ] κοινωνὸν µεταξὺ ἐπιφα̣ ν̣[ – ca. ? – ] Trans.: so that the field located … (?) the partner between … (?)

SB VI 9399 (TM: 36838) Private letter Hermopolis?

A.D. VI

Connotation: associate tax-collector (or liturgist?) ll. 14–15: ε̣ἰ̣ δὲ µ̣ ή̣, µ̣ ά̣θε, εἰ δύνασαι πεῖσαι τοὺς κυνώνους ὅπως δώσω̣ σι π̣ άλι τὰ ἀναλώµατα κτλ. Trans.: otherwise, find out, if it is possible to persuade the partners that they may repay the expenses etc. Note: the connotation of τοὺς κυνώνους is suggested by the mention of κεφαλαιωτία in l. 14. Biblio.: Gerstinger, WS 70 (1957): 109–112. On the role of the κεφαλαιωταί, see Oertel, Liturgie, 225–29; Bagnall, SPap 17.1 (1978): 49–54; Lallemand, L’administration, 210–11.

PSI VIII 954 (TM: 36170) Account Oxyrhynchites

A.D. VI

Connotation: co-owner? lease partner? l. 27 (cf. l. 44): π(αρὰ) Μαξίµου (καὶ) Οὐερσεντίου (καὶ) κοιν(ωνῶν) δ(ι’) Ἰ[σα]ὰ̣κ ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτ(οῦ) σ(ίτου) κ(αγκέλλῳ) νδ [ – ca. ? – ] (καὶ) (δηναρίων) µ(υριάδες) Αφ κτλ. Trans.: from Maximus, Ouersentios, and associates, through Isaac, 54 measures of grain … (?) and 1,500 denarii etc.

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

457

P.Oxy. XVI 2030 (TM: 37919) List of receipts Oxyrhynchos

late A.D. VI

Connotation: associate potter? ll. 6–7: δ(ιὰ) Φὶβ κεραµ(έως) καὶ Ἀβάρωνος καὶ κοιν(ωνῶν) δηµ(οσίῳ) νο(µίσµατα) γ κτλ. Trans.: through Phib the potter and Abaron and associate to the fiscus, 3 nomismata etc.

P.Oxy. XVI 2037 (TM: 37923) List of dues Oxyrhynchos

late A.D. VI

Connotation: associate farmer (?)/presbyteros l. 1 (cf. ll. 3, 33): [π]ρὸ(ς) Ἐνὼχ Παµβηχίο[υ] καὶ κοιν(ωνοὺς) ὑπὲρ µη[χ(ανῆς)] ἀγροι(κικοῖς) σίτ(ου) (ἀρτ.) οθ κτλ. l. 19 (cf. l. 23): πρ(ὸς) Παµβήχιον πρε(σβύτερον) καὶ κοιν(ωνούς) Trans.: to Enoch, son of Pambechios, and his associates for an irrigation wheel (?), 79 artabas of grain etc.

P.Oxy. XVI 1912 (TM: 22042) Estate account (from Apion’s archive) Oxyrhynchos

Late A.D. VI

Connotation: co-owner? lease partner? Col. 3, l. 44 (cf. l. 48): π(αρὰ) Ποτάµ{µ}ωνος καὶ κοιν(ωνῶν) σίτου µέτρ(ῳ) (ἀρτ.) ρξδ χο(ίν.) δ νο(µ.) ιβιβ´ κτλ. Trans.: from Potamon and his associates, 164 artabas of grain, 4 choenix measures, 12 1/12 nomismata etc. Biblio.: on Apion’s family and archive, see Hardy, Large Estates, 25–38 (esp. p. 34); Azzarello, “Apioni,” in Proceedings 25th (ed. Gagos), 33–46.

P.Oxf. 16 (TM: 36097) Land lease Hermopolites

A.D. VI–VII

Connotation: co-owner ll. 2–6: Ταυρ[ιννοήθου κο]ιν̣[ωνοῦ καὶ τ]ῶν αὐτ̣ο̣ ῦ̣ κ̣ ο̣ ι [̣ ν]ωνῶν εἰς τὰ[ς] λοιπὰς ̣ [ἀ]ρούρας, ἐ[ν] δὲ ἄλλῳ τόπῳ τὰ ὑπόλοιπα ἄµµατα τεσσαράκοντα δύο ἀπὸ ἀρουρῶν τεσσάρων ἡµίσους … κατὰ κοινωνίαν τοῦ αὐτοῦ Ταυριν̣ νοήθου καὶ τῶν αὐτοῦ κοινωνῶν εἰς τὰς λοιπὰς ἀρούρας κτλ.

458

Appendix

Trans.: (…?) of Taurinnoethos (…?) and his associates for the remaining arouras, and in another place the remaining 42 ammata from the four and a half arouras … (which is owned) in common with the same Taurinnoethos and his associates for the remaining arouras etc.

SB XIV 12049 (TM: 35890) Land lease Hermopolis

A.D. VI–VII?

Connotation: lease partner ll. 2–9: [Ὁµολογῶ ἑκουσίως καὶ] αὐθαιρέτως µεµισθῶσθαι παρὰ τῆς σῆς [εὐγενείας …] … µέρει τοῦ ἐκεῖσε λάκκου καὶ τοῦ τ̣ όπου [ – ca. 14 – καὶ βο]οστασίου καὶ παντὸς δικαίου ἀπὸ ἀρουρῶν [δέκα – ca. 10 – κατὰ κο]ινωνίαν τῶν ὑπολοίπων κοινωνῶν [ὑπὲρ τῶν ὑπολοίπων ἀρου]ρ[ῶ]ν κτλ. Trans.: [I acknowledge to have leased [voluntarily and] of my own free will from your [nobility] a part of the cistern there and of the room … (?) [and] of the ox-stall, with every right, from the [ten?] arouras [in] partnership with the remaining partners [for the remaining arouras?] etc. Biblio.: Sijpesteijn, Talanta 6 (1975): 45–48.

P.Bad. IV 95 (TM: 36855) Account Hermopolites

Early A.D. VII

Connotation: life partner and/or co-owner? l. 32: [π(αρὰ)] Ἰωάνου καὶ Μαρία̣ [ς] κοιν(ωνῶν) ἀποτ(άκτου) ν̣(οµίσµατα) ιγ κτλ. Trans.: from Ioannes and Maria, partners, the prescribed 13 nomismata etc. Biblio.: Schnebel, JEA 14.1 (1928): 34–45; Morelli, ZPE 122 (1998): 139–43.

SB XXVI 16665 (TM: 39693) (= SB XX 14701; description in P.Lond. III 1097 B)

Tax register

Apollonopolis Parva Connotation: associate in undetermined business l. 3: δ(ιὰ) Κελῶλ καὶ τῶ(ν) κοι(νωνῶν) αὐτ(οῦ) νο(µίσµατα) λδ κτλ. Trans.: through Kelon and his associates, 34 nomismata etc.

A.D. VII

B.2: Κοινωνός in Papyri

459

B.2.1 Κοινωνός – Date Undetermined O.Amst. 70 (TM: 70417) Account Thebes?

Roman era

Connotation: sense and context unclear ll. 1–6: [ – ca. 10 – ] vac. ? κηλ(ώνει ) [ – ca. ? – ] ̣νεώτερος η ̣[ – ca. ? – ] Τη[ ̣ ̣ ̣]ι̣ρις vac. ? κηλ(ώνει ) [ – ca. ? – ] Οὐαλεριανὸ̣ς ̣ κυνονύ̣ Πρινκουρεσι Παµώνθη(ς) ἀδελφ[ός – ca. ? – ] Biblio.: Arzt-Grabner, “Onesimus,” in Philemon (ed. Tolmie), 136.

O.Amst. 71 (TM: 70418) Account Thebes?

Roman era

Connotation: sense and context unclear ll. 4–7: [ – ca. ? – ] τεῆσις κυνονὺ ̣[ – ca. ? – ]υπατου παρι κ[ηλ( ) – ca. ? – ]υλιρις µεκαν(άριος?) κη[λ( ) – ca. ? – ]ετιπλευον καὶ κυνονύ [ – ca. ? – ] Biblio.: Arzt-Grabner, “Onesimus,” in Philemon (ed. Tolmie), 136.

B.2.2 Κοινωνός – Doubtful Reading P.Tebt. III 2.895 (TM: 5445) (= P.Tebt. III 1.778)

Petition

Berenikis Thesmophoru

175 B.C.

Connotation: sense unclear ll. 66–67: Πολέµωνος µερίδ[α κα]τ̣ εÆυῆσθαι µονῆς ε̣[ – ca. ? – κοι]ν̣ ω̣ νῶι καὶ τοῦτον̣ π̣ αρα̣ µεµενηκότα ̣[ – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: from Polemon, portions to be pledged (?) … (?) to the associate and this remaining … (?) etc.

BGU XVI 2625 (TM: 23349) Private letter Herakleopolites

15 B.C.

Connotation: sense unclear ll. 20–22: σ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣τι ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]αι ἵνα µὴ µέµψῃ εἰ [ – ca. 6 – κοι]νωνοὺς ἐµοὶ ἔγραψας·µὴ οὖν̣ [ἄλλως ποιή]σῃς κτλ. Trans.: … (?) so that you may not blame … (?) the partners you wrote to me lest … (?) etc.

460

Appendix

BGU I 287 (TM: 9033) (= W.Chr. 124; Sel.Pap. I 48)

Certificate of pagan sacrifice Arsinoite

A.D. 250

Connotation: possible reference of κοινωνός as a participant in a sacrifice ll. 1–18: Tοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν θυσιῶν ᾑρηµένοις κώ(µης) Ἀλεξ(άνδρου) Νήσου παρὰ Αὐρηλ(ίου) ∆ιογένου Σαταβοῦτος … (hand 2) Αὐρήλ(ιος) σ̣ ̣ ̣ρ ̣ ̣ ̣[…] θύοντα Μ̣υ̣σ̣[…] (hand 3) ̣ ̣ ̣ωνος σ̣ε̣σ̣(ηµείωµαι) κτλ. Milligan, Selections, 116, #48: (hand 2) Αὐρή[λ(ιος)] Σύρος ∆ι[ογένη] θύοντα ἅµα ἡ[µῖν?] κοινωνὸς σεσ[ηµείωµαι). Trans. (Milligan): “To those chosen to superintend the sacrifices at the village of Alexander-Island, from Aurelius Diogenes, the son of Satabus, … (2nd hand) I, Aurelius Syrus, as a participant have certified Diogenes as sacrificing along with us.” Biblio.: Carr, Expositor 5 (1913): 461; MM, s.v. κοινωνός, 351.

P.Harr. I 99 (TM: 21077) Account of military supplies Oxyrhynchite (?)

ca. A.D. 301

Connotation: business partner? ll. 1–4: Λόγος τ̣ῶ̣ν δοθέντων ἀννωνικῶν εἰδῶν … Ἑρµίᾳ καὶ Ὡρίωνι καὶ κ̣ ο̣ [ι(νωνοῖς) – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: account of annona supplies paid … to Hermia and Horion and their associates (?) etc. Biblio.: Mitthof, Annona, 420, #86.

P.Oxy. LXVII 4610 (TM: 78652) Agreement to deliver barley Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 363

Connotation: possible reference to an associate epimeletes (i.e., curator) ll. 16–17: [Αὐρήλιος Γεν]νά̣[διος (?)] Ἰουλε̣ι α̣ νοῦ παρείºηφα ἅµα τοῖς κ̣ ο̣ [ινωνοῖς – ca. ? – ] ̣ια ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ς καὶ παραδ̣ ώ̣σω̣ ὡς πρόκειται [ – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: [Aur. Gennadius?], son of Iulianus, I received together with the associates … (?) and I shall deliver as prescribed … (?) etc. Biblio.: cf. P.Oxy. LXVII 4606, 4612.

461

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

BGU XVII 2707 (TM: 44592) Receipt Hermopolites

A.D. IV

Connotation: reference to a collegium (i.e., κοινόν)? a member of a collegium? ll. 2–10: χιρόγραφον κοινῶν κώµης Ἁρίµφις καὶ Μουσῆς καὶ Παῆσις καὶ κο〚ιν〛ωνῶν ἀργ(υρίου) (τάλαντα) ιε. ἔλαβα ἐγὼ Ἀβίνναιος εἰς λόγον φιλανθρώπου ἀργυρίου τάλαντα ρλδ κτλ. Trans.: chirograph of the koinon of the villages of Harimphis, Mouses, and Paeses, and associates, 15 silver (talents). I, Abinnaios, received to the account of (special) grants 134 silver talents etc. Trans. (ed. pr.): “Handschein der Gesellschafter des Dorfes Harimphis und Muses und Paesis (und der Gesellschafter), 15 Silbertalente. Ich, Abinnaios, empfing auf das Konto der Sonderzuwendung 134 Silbertalente.”

B.3 Κοινωνία BGU IV 1051 (TM: 18494) Marriage contract 30 B.C.–A.D. 14

Alexandria Connotation: marital union

l. 9: πρὸς βίου κοινωνίαν Trans.: in community of life Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 15; MM, s.v. κοινωνία, 351.

BGU IV 1099 (TM: 18537) Marriage contract Alexandria Connotation: marital union l. 6: πρὸς βίου κοιν[ωνίαν] Trans.: in community of life Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 15.

30 B.C.–A.D. 14

462

Appendix

BGU IV 1100 (TM: 18538) Marriage contract Alexandria

30 B.C.–A.D. 14

Connotation: marital union l. 10: πρὸς βίου κοινωνίαν Trans.: in community of life Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 15.

BGU IV 1052 (TM: 18495) Marriage contract Alexandria

14/13 B.C.

Connotation: marital union ll. 5–7: Συνχωροῦσιν Θέρµιον καὶ Ἀπολλώνιος Πτολεµαίου συνεληλυθέναι ἀλλήλοις πρὸς βίου κοινωνίαν κτλ. Trans.: Thermion and Apollonios, son of Ptolemaios, consent to be joined together in community of life etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 15; MM, s.v. κοινωνία, 351; Johnson, Roman Egypt, 293, #182.

P.Bour. 13 (TM: 17945) Partnership contract for a sale concession Memphis

A.D 98

Connotation: business partnership ll. 1–2: Πετο]σ[ῖ]ρ[ις Ἰ]ρανούπ[ιος] καὶ Πετερµούθης Ἀ̣πύγχιος, ἀµφότεροι τῶν ἀπὸ Μέµφεως φα[κ]εψῶν, ὁµολογοῦ[σ]ι τεθεῖσθαι [πρ]ὸς ἑαυτοὺς µετοχὴν καὶ κοινωνίαν ἀπὸ τ[ο]ῦ[ – ca. ? – ]ω[ – ca. ?– µ]ηνὸς Καισαρείου κτλ. Trans.: Petosiris, son of Iranoupis, and Petermouthis, son of Ephonychos, both from the (collegia?) of boiled lentils at Memphis, acknowledge to have formed with each other a partnership and (business) association from the month of … (?) etc. (ed. pr.: “une association et une communauté”; Johnson: “a company and partnership”). Biblio.: Meyer, ZRG 48 (1928): 615; Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 65–66, 68; Johnson, Roman Egypt, 384–85, #234; Montevecchi, La papirologia, 225; Seidl, Rechtsgeschichte, 194; Jakab, Tyche 16 (2001): 73.

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

463

P.CtYBR inv. 616 (TM: N/A) (Online: http://papyri.info/apis/yale.apis.0006160000)

Partnership contract?

Provenance?

A.D. 99

Connotation: partnership in an undetermined enterprise ll. 4–5: Βησᾶς ∆ιόφαντου τεθιµε (= τίθηµι) τὴν κοινωνίαν κτλ. Trans.: I, Besas, son of Diophantos, formed a partnership etc. Note: No transcript is provided on the papyri.info online platform at this stage. Only a photograph of reasonable quality is included. The document is described as a partnership contract between three men concerning some enterprise, for which purpose each provides a capital sum (cf. κεφάλαιον on l. 5?). The first three lines are in a different cursive hand, which is difficult to decipher. Line 6 is not very clear. The second part of line 7, which is truncated at the beginning, is even less legible. The remaining twelve lines, which are written in another hand, are better preserved, but are not easily deciphered based on the photograph provided. It remains unclear whether the right hand side of the papyrus has been damaged, as the 1–1.5 cm margin found on the left is not reproduced on the right.

P.Yadin I 18 (TM: 23498) Marriage contract Maoza (Arabia)

A.D. 128

Connotation: marital union l. 7: πρὸ̣ς γάµου κοινων̣[ία]ν Trans.: in community of marriage Biblio.: Grubbs, Women, 132–33; Yiftach-Firanko, “Marriage Documents,” in Law, 78– 80.

P.Flor. III 370 (TM: 19386) Partnership agreement Hermopolis

A.D. 132

Connotation: business partnership ll. 1–5: Τίτος Φλαύϊος Σαραπίων Πουπλίῳ Αἰλίῳ Ἀπολλωνίῳ χα(ίρειν). [Ὁ]µολογῶ ἔσασθαί σοι κοινωνὸς κατὰ τὸ ἥµισυ µέρος γεωργίας τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος ἑπτακαιδεκάτου (ἔτους) Ἁδρι[α]νοῦ κ(αί)σαρος τοῦ κυρίου κτλ. ll. 13–18: ἐπὶ τό µε τελέσαι τοῦ ἐνελκουµένου σοι φόρου ἢ ἐνελκουσθησοµέν̣ου τὸ ἥµισυ, ἐµοῦ κ̣ ατ’ ἴσον σοι [π]άσας τὰς δαπάνας κ(αὶ) σπέρµατα κ(αὶ) ἔργα κ(αὶ) 〚α〛 τὰ ἄ¶ α πάντα ἀνεµποδίστως ποιησοµένου κατὰ τὸ ἥµισυ. 〚(ἔτους) ι〛 ἡ κοινωνία κυρία. Trans.: (ll. 1–5) Titus Flavius Sarapion to Publius Aelius Apollonios, greetings. I agree to be your partner for (the cultivation of) a half share of (arable) land for the current seventeenth year of Imperator Caesar Hadrian … (ll. 13–18) (I agree) to pay to you half of all of the tribute that is imposed or shall be imposed, sharing with you equally

464

Appendix

all the expenditures, seeds, labour, and all other (costs), without hindrance. (Let) the partnership (be) effective. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815; San Nicolò, Vereinswesen 1:150–51 (classified as P.Gentilli 3); Herrmann, Bodenpacht, 218, 220; Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 65, 67–68; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 392 (n. 17); Baumert, Koinonein, 258; Arzt-Grabner, “Onesimus,” in Philemon (ed. Tolmie), 136.

P.Flor. I 41 (TM: 23557) Land lease Hermopolis

A.D. 140

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 3–8: [ἐκ] τ̣ οῦ Φιλίσκου κλήρου (ἀρούρας) δε[κ]άδυο ἀπ[ὸ κ]οινῶν καὶ ἀδιαιρέτων (ἀρουρῶν) ιη κατὰ κο[ιν]ωνίαν Ἀρτεµιδώρας Ἰσιδώρο[υ] τῆς µὲν Βησο̣ ῦτος (ἀρούρας) ζ τῆς δὲ Ἀρτεµιδώρας (ἀρούρας) ε κτλ. Trans.: 12 arouras out of the lot of Philiskos, from 18 common and undivided arouras, (which are owned) in common by Artemidora, daughter of Isidoros, of which 7 arouras (belong to) Besous and 5 arouras (belong to) Artemidora etc. Note: the beginning and the end of the lease is lost. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 15; MM, s.v. κοινωνία, 351.

P.Lond. II 311 (TM: 11690) (= M.Chr. 237; cf. BL I, p. 265)

Loan receipt

Soknopaiou Nesos

A.D. 149

Connotation: co-ownership of a slave (cf. LSJ, s.v. κοινωνία 1.) ll. 8–13: ποιησά[σ]θω [ἡ] ὁµολογοῦσα Θαῆ[σις] … δεδωκέναι δὲ [τὴ]ν Θαῆσιν [ἐν] [συν]αλλάγµατι καὶ διενγυήµατος τ[οῦ] προκιµέ[νου] κ[εφα]λαίου καὶ τῶν τόκων τὰς ὑπαρχούσας α[ὐτ]ῇ περὶ τὴν [προκιµ]ένην κώµην Ἡρακλείαν … ἀρ̣ ο̣ [ύρας] πέντε … καὶ τὰ ὑπ[ά]ρχοντα αὐτ̣ῇ ̣ δουλικὰ σωµά[τια] δύο τρ[ε]φ̣[όµεν]α [κ]ο̣ ι ν̣ ωνίᾳ (ed. pr.: τρ[ – ca. 11 – ]νω̣ ν ̣ ̣) [τῆ]ς Ταµ[ύσ]θας γερδιαίν̣ η[ς] κτλ. Trans.: and let the consenting Thaesis … give in exchange and as security for the aforementioned capital and interests five arouras of her property by the aforementioned village of Herakleia … and her two house-bred slaves jointly-owned with Tamystha the weaver etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815. On the co-ownership of slaves, see Buckland, Law of Slavery, 372–96; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 76–77; Baumert, Koinonein, 263.

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

465

PSI X 1119 (TM: 17549) Sale contract Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 156

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 3–11: Ὁ[µολο]γεῖ ∆ιονυσία … πεπρακέναι … τὰ ὑπάρ̣ χ̣ ̣[οντα αὐτῇ] ὀικὰ (= οἰκία?) καὶ βοικὰ κτή[νη] πάντα ὄντα ἐν ἐποικίῳ κα[ὶ ἀµπελικῷ κτή]µατι αὐτῆς περὶ κώµην Σενέπτα ἃ ἐλ̣ ά̣µ[βαν]εν ἡ ∆̣ [ιονυσία? ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ἅµα ἄλλοις τῷ αὐτῷ Σαραπίωνι κ̣ ατὰ κυνω̣ [νίαν] τ̣ ο̣ ῦ̣ [ἡµίσους µέρους? πρὸς] τὴν γυναῖκα αὐ̣τοῦ Σαραπιάδα κτλ. Trans.: Dionysia acknowledges … to have sold … her house (?) and oxen, and all that is in her farmhouse, (her vineyard?) by the village of Senepta, which Dionysia (?) received at the same time with the other (things) (to be owned) in common with Sarapion [on equal shares?] with his wife Sarapiada etc.

P.Iand. VII 142 (TM: 17345) Fragmentary estate inventory Oasis Magna

A.D. 164/5

Connotation: co-ownership? (context unclear) ll. 24–26: ἀµπ(ελίτιδος) (ἄρουρα) α δ´ ιϛ´ ἐλ(αιῶνος) [… γί(τονες)̣ … κ(αὶ) ἐκ τῶ(ν) ἄλ(λων) γ(?)]ἀνέµων τὰ κατὰ τὴν κοινω(νίαν) Αὐρηλ(ίου) Θ̣ έ̣ωνος καὶ [τοῦ δεῖνος – ca. 16 – ] κτλ. Trans.: of the young vineyard 1 1/4 1/16 arouras, of olive yard … (? arouras) … (?) (which is owned) in common with Aur. Theon and … (?) etc. Trans. (ed. pr.): [… , dessen Anlieger … und nach den 3 andern] Himmelsrichtungen der Samtbesitz des Aurelios Theon und [des N.N.]

SB XVIII 13176 (TM: 18322) Petition Hermopolites

A.D. 168

Connotation: marital union ll. 66–67: [πρ]ὸς γάµου [κοιν]ω̣ ν̣[ί]α[ν] Trans.: in community of marriage

P.Oxy. VI 905 (TM: 20369) Marriage contract Oxyrhynchos Connotation: marital union ll. 4–5: πρὸς γάµου κοι[νωνίαν] Trans.: in community of marriage Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815; Winter, Life, 121–122.

A.D. 170

466

Appendix

P.Princ. II 36 (TM: 17360) Fragmentary partnership contract Provenance?

A.D. 195–197?

Connotation: (tax-farming) partnership? (cf. λ̣ [ο]γ̣ ε ̣ύµατα̣ , l. 1) ll. 6–9: [ – ca. ? – ]εν πᾶσι τοῖς διὰ τῆς µισθώ[σεως – ca. ? – ] δικαίοις πᾶσι. ἡ κοινωνία [κυρία ἔστω. (ἔτους)? Αὐτοκ]ράτορος Καίσαρος Λουκίου [Σεπτιµίου Σεουήρου] κτλ. Trans.: … (?) [Let] the partnership (be effective?). (Year?) of the Emperor Caesar Lucius [Septimius Severus] etc.

BGU I 75 (TM: 28219) Letter? Arsinoites

A.D. II

Connotation: sense unclear ll. 13–16: ὅτι διωκ[ – ca. ? – ]λω ἀργυρῷ µετα[ ̣ ̣]ιουν[ – ca. ? – ] τὴν κοινωνίαν [ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ – ca. ? – ]καὶ αὐτὸν καθελ[ – ca. ? – ] κτλ.

P.Poethke 21 (TM: 128335) Official letter Arsinoites

A.D. II

Connotation: sense unclear (papyrus very fragmented) l. 6: [ – ca. ? – ] ̣ ̣ ̣ κοινωνίαν ἐχον ̣ ̣[ – ca. ? – ]

P.Oxy. XII 1473 (TM: 21874) Remarriage application Oxyrhynchos Connotation: marital union l. 33: πρὸς γάµου κοινωνία Trans.: in community of marriage Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815; MM, s.v. κοινωνία, 351.

A.D. 201

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

467

P.Dura 30 (TM: 17227) Marriage contract Dura-Europos

A.D. 232

Connotation: marital union ll. 10–11: πρὸς γάµ[ο]υ κοι̣νω̣ ν̣ ε[̣ ίαν] Trans.: in community of marriage Biblio.: Grubbs, Women, 134–35.

P.Lips. I 10 (TM: 22330) (= M.Chr. 189)

Loan application Hermopolis

A.D. 240

Connotation: sense unclear (papyrus too fragmented for ll. 15–35) ll. 15–16: [ – ca. 22 – ] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ γείτονες] τῆς ὅλης κοινωνίας νό[του ̣ ̣] [ – ca. 22 – ] ̣α ̣ κτλ. Trans. (Preisigke): “Anlieger des gesamten Gemeinschaftbesitzes.” Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815; Arangio-Ruiz, “Societas,” in Studi Riccobono (ed. Riccobono), 383; Johnson, Roman Egypt, 168–170, #98; Baumert, Koinonein, 263– 64.

P.Cair.Isid. 107 (TM: 30620) Rental receipt Karanis

ca. A.D. 250–300

Connotation: joint lease ll. 2–5: ἀπέσχον π[αρ]ὰ σοῦ τὸ ἐπιβ̣ ά̣λ[λο]ν̣ µ̣ ο̣ ι ̣ ὑπὲρ γε(νήµατος) α̣ [(ἔτους)] ἧς ἐγεώ[ρ]γησάς [µου] περὶ κώ(µην) Πτολεµ[α]ίδα Νέ̣α̣ ν̣ ἐπὶ κοινωνίαν ἐπὶ ̣[ ̣]ι ̣σε̣ιας πυροῦ ἀρτάβας δεκαπέντ[ε] κτλ. Trans.: I received from you what falls to me of the produce of the first (year?) of that which you cultivated [from me?] by the village of Ptolemais Nea in partnership for … (?), fifteen artabas of wheat etc.

SB IV 7474 (TM: 14026) (Cf. P.Princ. II 37)

Lease of crown land Arsinoites

A.D. 254

Connotation: joint lease (share-cropping/colonia partiaria) ll. 3–4: βουλόµεθα µ̣ ισθώσασθα̣ ι ̣ παρά σου̣ ἐ̣ξ ἀ£ηλεγ’γύης ἐπὶ [κο]ι̣νωνίᾳ κατὰ τὸ ἥµι̣[σ]υ µέρος τοῦ λοιποῦ [ἡµίσους] µ̣ έ̣ρ̣ους ὄντος σοῦ τοῦ Ἡρακλεί[δου ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ τὰς] ὑ̣[π]αρχούσας σ[οι] περὶ κώµην̣ [Τ]άνιν σι[τι]κάς κτλ.

468

Appendix

Trans.: we wish to lease from you on mutual security, in partnership, on half-shares, the other (half) share being yours, Herakleides, … (?) the seeded land (belonging) to you by the village of Tanis etc. Note: it may belong to the same archive as P.Princ. II 37, according to Rupprecht. Biblio.: Hoesen and Johnson, TAPA 56 (1925): 213–28; Steinwenter, “Gesellschaftsrechte,” in Studi Riccobono (ed. Riccobono), 499–500; Herrmann, Bodenpacht, 219; Rupprecht, Quittung, 35; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 358–59 (n. 18).

P.Princ. II 37 (TM: 12832) (Cf. SB IV 7474)

Receipt for the rent payment of a land lease Tanis

A.D. 255–256

Connotation: joint lease (share-cropping/colonia partiaria) ll. 5–8 (cf. ll. 18–20): ἀπέσχον παρ’ ὑµῶν τὸ ἐκφόριον ὧν γεωργεῖταί µου ἀρουρῶν ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ περὶ κώ(µην) Τάνιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος δευτέρου ἔτου[ς] κτλ. Trans.: (ll. 5–8) I received from you the payment for my arouras which is cultivated in partnership by the village of Tanis for the current second year etc. Note: it may belong to the same archive as SB IV 7474; according to Rupprecht. Biblio.: Rupprecht, Quittung, 35.

P.Princ. II 38 R (TM: 17361) Roman testament Hermopolis

ca. A.D. 264

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 5–7: Αὐ(ρηλίῳ) Ἀχιλλεῖ τῷ καὶ Ἑρµίνῳ κοσµητ(ῇ) συµβίῳ µου [καταλεί]π̣ ω περὶ Ἰβιῶ[ν]α Π̣ ετεαφθὶ µαχί{ι}µων συντάξεων ἐκ τοῦ Ναυβη̣ κ̣ λ̣ή ρου ἀφ’ ὧν ἔχω ἐν µίᾳ κοίτῃ ἀρουρῶ(ν) [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ς ̣ εξ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ἀρ[ο]ύρα[ς π]έντε καὶ περὶ τὴν α̣ [ὐτὴν] κ̣ ώ̣µ̣ η̣ ν β̣ ί̣ο̣ υ κοινωνίας Ἀλίνης ἧς ἔχω ἀρούρας τρεῖς κτλ. Trans.: To my husband Aur. Achilleus, also called Hermeinos, a kosmetes, I bequeath some land assigned to machimoi in the locality of Ibion Peteaphthi, from the allotment of Naubes, five arouras of those arouras which I own in a parcel … (?), and three arouras (of those arouras) near the same village which (I own) for life in common with Aline etc. Trans. (Rowlandson): “which I have in partnership with Aline.” Trans. (Burnet): “le bien que je possède en commun avec Aline.” Biblio.: Rowlandson, Women, 197–98, #146; Burnet, L’Égypte, 225–26, #155.

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

469

P.Flor. I 50 (TM: 23563) Division of (inherited) property Hermopolis

A.D. 268

Connotation: co-ownership (cf. Mees, Organisationsformen, 368: “im Gemeinschaftseigentum”) l. 10: [ἥµισυ µέρος κ]ατὰ κοινωνία[ν] Κλ(αυδίας) Ἑρµιταρίου κτλ. Cf. ll. 3, 7, 14, 28, 29, 35, 43–44, 53, 55, 58, 60, 64, 65, 68, 71, 73, 75, 79, 84, 87, 91, 92, 93–94, 99, 102, 113. Trans.: [half a share] (owned) in common with Claudia Hermitarion etc. Biblio.: Abbadi, “P.Flor. 50,” in Proceedings 14th, 91–96; Kehoe, Management, 99; Mees, Organisationsformen, 368 (ll. 67–68, 101ff).

P.Ryl. II 117 (TM: 19505) (= FIRA2 3.181)

Petition to the strategos Hermopolis

A.D. 269

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 15–18: [ἐπεὶ οὖν ὁ ὁµ]οπάτριός µου ἀδελφὸς Αὐρήλιος Κοπρέας πρὸς ὃν οὐδεµ̣ ί̣α̣ [ν κοι]ν̣ ω̣ ν̣ ίαν ἔ̣χ̣ [ω] ἄτεκνος καὶ ἀδιάθετος τετελεύτηκεν καθ’ ἑαυτὸν ζῶ[ν] κ̣ α̣ [ . . ]ώ̣ν, οὐδενὸς δὲ τούτου ἐφηψάµην οὐδὲ τῇ κληρονοµίᾳ προσῆ̣λ̣θ̣[ον] κτλ. Trans.: so when my brother on my father’s side, Aur. Kopreas, with whom I have nothing in common (and) who lived by himself, died without children and intestate, … (?) I did not set my eyes on any of these (possessions) nor did I partake of his inheritance etc. Trans. (FIRA2 3.181): Cum autem frater meus consanguineus, Aur. Copreas, quocum nullam bonorum communionem habui, sine liberis et intestatus decesserit et uiuus (et moriens) seorsum fuerit, nec ipsa ullam rem ad eum spectantem attigerim nec hereditatem adierim. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815; MM, s.v. κοινωνία, 351.

SB I 4426 (TM: 23127) Petition to the Governor Provenance? Connotation: marital union ll. 4–5: πρὸς γάµου κοινω[νίαν – ca. ? – ] Trans.: in community of marriage Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815.

ca. A.D. 274

470

Appendix

P.Corn. 12 (TM: 20908) Fragmentary sale contract of a share of a house Antinoopolis

A.D. 282

Connotation: co-ownership? (context unclear, papyrus very fragmented) l. 18: [ – ca. ? – ] ̣ω κατὰ κοινωνίαν ἑτέρα[ν – ca. ? – ]

P.Oxy. XIV 1642 R (TM: 21952) Appointment of (legal) representatives Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 289

Connotation: co-ownership? (papyrus very fragmented) ll. 29–30: οὐδεµία µοί ἐστι ̣[ἔχθρα πρὸς αὐτ(ὸν)?, οὐδὲ γ]ὰ̣ρ̣ κοιν̣ ω̣ ν̣ ί̣αν ἔχει ὑπαρχόντων πρὸς τὴν ἡµετέραν σύµ[β]ιο[ν.] κτλ. Trans.: there is no [enmity between me and him?], nor is there a community of possessions vis-à-vis our companionship (?) etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815.

P.Bad. II 26 (TM: 19323–19325, 80103) Account fragment Hermopolites

A.D. 292/3

Connotation: joint lease l. 29: ὧν γεωργοῦσ̣ [ι (ἀρουρῶν)] λγ γ̣ ̣´ ἀπὸ (ἀρουρῶν) ρ κα̣ τὰ κοινωνί[α]ν ὑ̣π̣ [ὲρ – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Cf. ll. 22, 31–32, 82–83. Trans.: (of) which they cultivate 33 1/3 (arouras), from the 100 (arouras) in partnership … (?) etc. Biblio.: Worp, ZPE 118: 243–44.

P.Col. VII 124 (TM: 10476) (= P.Coll. Youtie II 76; duplicate of P.Mich. XII 626)

Census declaration extracts

Karanis

A.D. 298–302

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 5–6 (cf. ll. 22–23): ἀνατολ(ῶν) γῆ ἄβρόχου ἀδέσποτος διόλου, δυσµ(ῶν) Ἥρωνος καὶ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τόπῳ ἀπὸ κοινωνίας Ἥρωνος ἰδιω(τικῆς) σ(πορᾶς) ιγ (ἔτους) (ἄρ.) δ δ´ η´ ξδ´ κτλ. Trans.: (l. 6) on the east, non-inundated land totally without an owner, on the west (estate) of Heron, and in the same place, (owned) in common with Heron, 4 1/4 1/8 1/64 arouras of private arable land in year 13 etc.

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

471

SB VIII 9852 (TM: 31992) Fragment of petition? Provenance?

A.D. III?

Connotation: sense unclear (papyrus too fragmented) ll. 1–5: Α̣ [ὐ]ρ̣[ηλίῳ] ̣[ – ca. ? – ] παρὰ Αὐρηλίου [ – ca. ? – ] φυλακείας ιλ̣ [ – ca. ? – ] κοινωνίαν κ[ – ca. ? – ] καὶ πο£ὰ αἰτ ̣[ – ca. ? – ]

P.Sakaon 2 (TM: 13036) (= P.Thead. 54; Ch.L.A XLI 1205)

Census declaration

Ptolemais Euergetis (Arsinoites)

A.D. 300

Connotation: co-ownership l. 11 (cf. l. 10): [τῆς αὐτῆς σφραγ]ῖδος ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τόπῳ ἀπὸ κοινωνίας Πωλίωνος Σιπών[ιος] τὸ ἐ̣π̣ ι β ̣ άλλον αὐτῷ µέρος βασιλικῆς γῆς σπορᾶς κτλ. Trans.: [of the same section?] in the same place, the portion of royal seed land falling to him (owned) in common with Polion, son of Sipon, etc.

P.Sakaon 3 (TM: 13047) (= P.Ryl. IV 656; P.Thead. 55; Ch.L.A IV 256; Ch.L.A XLI 1206)

Census declaration

Ptolemais Euergetis (Arsinoites)

A.D. 300

Connotation: co-ownership l. 9: ἐπὶ τῆς ι σφραγῖδος ἐν τόπῳ Τκὲς λεγοµένῳ ἀπὸ κοινωνίας Ἀφεγύσου τὸ ἐπιβάλλον µοι [µέρος] βασιλικῆς γῆς κτλ. Trans.: for the 10th section, in the place called Tkes, the portion falling to me of royal seed land (owned) in common with Aphegusos etc.

P.Col. VII 179 (TM: 10533) (= SB VIII 9835)

Lease of an olive grove Karanis

A.D. 300

Connotation: joint lease ll. 6–9: βούλοµαι µισθ̣ ώσ̣ [α]σθ[α]ι̣ παρὰ̣ σοῦ ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ ἡµίσει µέρ̣ ει τὰ[ς] ὑπαρχούσας σοι περὶ τὴν αὐτὴν κώµην Καρανείδα ἐλαιῶνο̣ ς ἀρούρας δύο κτλ. Trans.: I wish to lease from you, in partnership, on half-shares, two arouras of the olive grove belonging to you by the same village of Karanis etc. Biblio.: ed. pr. Porges, TAPA 92 (1961): 469–80. Cf. Kehoe, Management, 161.

472

Appendix

P.Corn. 20 (TM: 10598) Census declaration Ptolemais Euergetis (Arsinoites)

A.D. 302

Connotation: co-ownership l. 11 (cf. l. 14): τῆς αὐτῆς σφραγεῖδος ἀπὸ κοινωνίας Πατερµουθείου κατὰ τὸ µέρος βασιλικῆς γῆς σπορίµης κτλ. Trans.: of the same section, (owned) in common with Patermouthis according to a share of royal arable land etc.

P.Lips. I 6 (TM: 22327) Sale contract of a piece of land Hermopolis

A.D. 306

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 3–6: ὁµολογῶ πεπρακέναι σοι [κ]ατὰ τήνδε τὴν δισσὴν ἔνγραφον ἀσφάλειαν ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἐπὶ τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον τὴν ὑπάρχουσάν µοι περὶ Σενεθῶθιν ἐκ τοῦ Τήρους καὶ Μενε[λάο]υ κλήρ[ο]υ γῆς κατοικικῆς ἀναιτητοῦ ἄρουραν µίαν ἕ̣κ̣ [τ]ον ἀπὸ κοινῶν καὶ ἀδιαιρέτων (ἀρουρῶν) β κατὰ κοινωνίαν Ἀππιανῆς Ἀπίωνος κτλ. Trans.: I acknowledge to have sold to you according to this double written guarantee, from now on and for all time, the property (belonging) to me by Senethothis, from the lot of Teros and Menelaos of irrigated catoecic land, one and a sixth arouras, from the common and undivided 2 (arouras), (owned) in common with Appiane, daughter of Apion, etc. Biblio.: Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 15; Baumert, Koinonein, 260–61.

P.Sakaon 71 (TM: 13089) (= P.Thead. 8; FIRA2 3.149)

Lease of sheep and goats Theadelphia

A.D. 306

Connotation: joint lease ll. 5–14: [βούλ]οµαι µισ[θώ]σασθαι παρὰ σοῦ τὰ ὑπάρχοντα ὑµῖν κοινῶς ἐξ ἴσου πρόβατα εὐάρε[στα ἀθά]ν̣ατα τέλε[ια, ἀριθµὸν ἑ]ξήκοντα δύο … τὰ µὲν πρόβατα ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ ἐµοὶ µὲν τῷ µεµ̣ ισθωµ̣ έ̣ν̣ῳ ἡµί[σι µέρι ὑ]µῖν δὲ τοῖς κ[τήτορσι]ν τῷ λοιπῷ ἡµίσι µέρι τῶν κατ’ ἔτος ἐκβησοµένων ἐξ [αὐ]τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ [ληµµάτων] κτλ. Trans.: I want to lease from you the adult sheep of good quality which you own in common in equal proportion, (and maintain) at the constant number of sixty two, … as for the sheep (reared) in partnership, half a [share] (shall be) to me the lessee and the other half of the [profits] generated from them every year (shall be) to you the [owners]. Trans. (Jouguet, P.Thead. 8, p. 76): “pour les moutons, nous nous partagerons tous les profits, une moitié étant pour moi le locataire et l’autre moitié pour vous propriétaires.”

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

473

Trans. (FIRA2 3.149): Conducere uolo a uobis … pecora quidem in societate futura esse mihi conductori pro dimidia parte uobisque dominis pro reliqua dimidia fructuum qui quotannis exinde percepti erint. Biblio.: Taubenschlag, LGRE, 370 (n. 14).

P.Col. VII 125 (TM: 10477) Census declaration extracts Karanis

A.D. 307

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 4–8: ἐν τόπῳ Πααλαµα λεγοµένῳ ἀπὸ κοινωνίας Ἰσιδώρου καὶ Ἥρωνος κα̣ὶ Ἑλένης ἰδιωτικῆς σπορᾶς ιδ (ἔτους) (ἀρούρης) η´ ιϛ´ λβ´ ξδ´ κτλ. Trans.: in the place called Paalama, (owned) in common with Isidoros, Heron and Helene, ½ 1/8 1/16 1/32 1/64 arouras of private arable land in year 14 etc.

P.Sakaon 38 (TM: 13056) (= P.Flor. I 36; M.Chr. 64; Ch.L.A XXV 778)

Petition to a Prefect

Theadelphia

A.D. 312

Connotation: marital union ll. 5, 25: πρὸς γάµου κοινωνίαν Trans.: in community of marriage Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 15.

P.Oxy. XLV 3254 (TM: 15916) Sale contract of flax A.D. 312/5

Oxyrhynchos Connotation: sense unclear (papyrus very fragmented) ll. 9–10: [ – ca. ? – ] κοινωνίᾳ̣ ἐµοῦ κ̣ [αὶ – ca. ? – ]

P.Oxy. XLV 3255 (TM: 20895) (= P.Coll.Youtie II 80)

Land lease

Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 315

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 7–11: ἐπιδέχοµαι µισθώσασθαι πρὸς µόν[ον τὸ] ἐνεστὸς ι´ [κ]αὶ η´ ἔτος ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων σοι περὶ τὸ Ἰ[σῖον] ΠαÆᾶ ἐν̣ π̣ εριχώµατι Πέκτυ ἐν τόπῳ Τέλκ̣ ε ̣ καλουµ[ένῳ] ἀρουρῶν δεκαέπτα κοινωνίας Πανάρους κατὰ τὸ τ[έταρτον] ὄγδοον µέρ̣ο̣ ς ̣ κτλ.

474

Appendix

Trans.: I accept to lease for the present 10th and 8th years only, from your property by Ision Panga in the embanked area of Pekty in the place called Telke, a three-eighths share of the seventeen arouras (owned) in common with Panares etc. Biblio.: Rowlandson, Landowners, 173 (n. 93), 350.

P.Cair.Isid. 74 (TM: 51670) (= Ch.L.A XLI 1202; duplicate of P.Mert. II 91)

Petition to the Prefect of Egypt

Karanis

A.D. 315

Connotation: joint lease ll. 5–6: [ἐµισθωσάµην παρὰ Κ]άστορος [κ]αὶ Ἀµµω[νι]ανοῦ σιτικὰς ἀρούρας εἰκοσιπέντε ἢ ὅσας ἐὰν ὦσι ἐπὶ κοινωνί̣ᾳ̣ ἡµίσυ µέρους [πρὸς µόνην τὴν τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος ἔτους σποράν] κτλ. Trans.: [I leased from] Kastor and Ammonianos, in partnership, on half-shares, twentyfive arouras of seed (land), or as many as there may be, [for sowing for the current year only?] etc. Biblio.: Kehoe, Management, 162.

P.Mert. II 91 (TM: 11939) (Duplicate of P.Cair.Isid. 74)

Petition to the strategos of Arsinoites Karanis

A.D. 316

Connotation: joint lease ll. 7–8: ἐµισθωσάµην παρὰ Κάστορος καὶ Ἀ̣µµ[ω]ν̣ ιανοῦ σιτικὰς ἀρούρας εἴκοσι πέντε ἢ ὅσα̣ [ι] ἐὰν ὦσι ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ ἡµίσους µ[έ]ρ̣ ους πρὸς µ̣ [όνην] τ̣ ὴ ν τοῦ ἐνεστῶτ̣ ο̣ ς ̣ ἔ̣τ̣ο̣ υ̣ ς ̣ σπορά̣ν̣ κτλ. Trans.: I leased from Kastor and Ammonianos, in partnership, on half-shares, twenty-five arouras of seed (land), or as many as there may be, for sowing for the current year [only] etc. Biblio.: Kehoe, Management, 162.

P.Oxy. I 103 (TM: 45292) (Description in P.Lond. III 767)

Land lease

Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 316

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 5–9: ἑκουσίω[ς] ἐπιδεχόµεθα µεισθώσα[σ]θαι … ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπ[α]ρχόντων σοι περὶ τὸ Ἰσῖον Πανγᾶ [cf. BL I, p. 315] ἐν περιχώµατι Νέσλα κο[ι]νωνείας τοῦ ἀδ[ε]λφοῦ σου Λευκα[δ]ίου ἄρουραν µείαν εἰς σπορὰν λινοκαλάµη[ς] κτλ.

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

475

Trans.: we voluntarily accept to lease one aroura from your property by Isieion Panga, in the embanked area of Nesla, (which is owned) in common with your brother Leukadios, for the sowing of flax etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815; Rowlandson, Landowners, 173 (n. 93), 350; Baumert, Koinonein, 264.

BGU II 586 (TM: 41051) Land lease Arsinoiton Polis

A.D. 324

Connotation: joint lease ll. 6–12: βουλόµαιθα µισθώσασθαι παρὰ σο[ῦ τὰς] ὑπαρχούσ[ας] περ[ὶ] κώµην Βουκόλων σι[τ]ικὰς ἀρούρα[ς] δ[έ]κα τρῖς ἢ ὅσας ἐὰν ὀ͂σι πρὸς ἀναµέτρισιν σχοινί(ου) πρὸς µώνην τὴν τοῦ [ἐ]νεστῶτος ἔτους σπορὰν ἐπεὶ κυνονίαν ἡµίσι µέρι κτλ. Trans.: we wish to lease from you thirteen arouras of seeded land by the village of Boukolon, or as many as may be measured, for the current year only, for cultivation in partnership on half-shares etc. Biblio.: Waszynski, Bodenpacht, 156; Preisigke, WB 1:815; Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 72; Montevecchi, La papirologia, 225; Herrmann, Bodenpacht, 211; Baumert, Koinonein, 264.

P.Sakaon 68 (TM: 13085) (= P.Thead. 7)

Land lease

Theadelphia

A.D. 325

Connotation: joint lease ll. 6–11: [βούλοµαι µι]σ̣ θ̣ [ώσ(ασθαι)] παρὰ σοῦ τὰς ὑπαρ[χούσας σοι περὶ κώ]µην Βούβασ[τον σιτικὰς] ἀρ[ο]ύρ[ας] τριάκοντα [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ἢ ὅσας ἐὰν] ὦ̣σ̣ ι̣ πρὸς τὴν̣ [ – ca. 10 – ] ̣τ̣ [ ̣ ̣]π̣ ρ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ – ca. 10 – ] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣]ας ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] κτλ. Trans.: [I wish to lease] from you thirty arouras of your [arable] land [by the village] of Boubaston [or as many as there may] be … (?) in partnership … (?) etc.

P.Vindob.Sal. 12 (TM: 17294) Lease of a heliasterion (i.e., sun-drying place) Hermopolis

A.D. 334/5

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 2–4: [ – ca. 17 – ] ἐ̣ν̣ τῇ αὐτῇ Ἑρµουπόλει ἐπ’ ἀµφόδου Πόλεως ἀπηλιώ[του ἐν ῥύµῃ δηµοσίᾳ κα]λ̣ ο̣ υµένῃ Ἀσκληπιοῦ κατὰ κοινω̣ νίαν τῶν ἀδελφῶν [σου …] κτλ.

476

Appendix

Trans.: [I wish to lease a sixth share of a heliasterion?] in the eastern part of the same Hermopolis […?] called Asklepios, (which is owned) in common with [your?] brothers etc. Biblio.: Papathomas, P.Heid. VII 405, p. 172. On the meaning of ἡλιαστήριον see Vandorpe and Clarysse, “Greek Winery,” in Two-Faces (eds. Verhoogt and Vleeming), 129–30; Jakab, Risikomanagement, 24-27.

P.Ross.Georg. III 28 (TM: 12895) Marriage contract Arsinoite

A.D. 343/358

Connotation: marital union l. 7: πρὸς γάµου κοινωνίαν Trans.: in community of marriage Biblio.: Grubbs, Women, 130–31.

P.Sakaon 48 (TM: 13067) (= SB VI 9622)

Petition to a Praepositus Pagi Theadelphia

A.D. 343

Connotation: marital union l. 5: πρὸ̣ς γάµου κοινωνίαν̣ Trans.: in community of marriage

P.Stras. III 131 (TM: 13167) (= SB V 8013)

Marriage contract Arsinoites Connotation: marital union l. 5: πρὸς γάµῳ κοινωνίαν Trans.: in community of marriage

A.D. 363

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

477

P.Kell. I 30 (TM: 20292) Exchange of ownership rights Kellis

A.D. 363

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 8–11: Ὁµολογοῦµεν ἀντικα̣ τ̣ η £άχθαι πρὸς ἀ£ήλου̣ [ς ἀπὸ τοῦ] ν̣ ῦ̣ν̣ ἐ̣πὶ τ̣ὸν̣ [ἅπ]αντα χρόνον τὸ ἐλθὸν [εἰς σὲ – ca. 10 – ἀπ]ὸ̣ κληρονοµίας τῆς µητρός [σ]ου … µέρος ἕκτον ἐπ̣ α̣ ύλεως ὂ̣ν̣ σὺν τῇ [ – ca. ? – ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ἐ̣ν̣ τοῖς νοτίνοις µέρεσι κ[ώµης Ἀφροδίτης κατ]ὰ κοινωνίαν ἐµ̣οῦ τοῦ Ψενπνούθου κτλ. Trans.: we agree to have exchanged with one another from now on and for all time what came to [you …? by] inheritance from your mother … , a sixth part of a farm stead which is (located) by (…?) in the southern quarters of the [village of Aphrodites] and (owned) in common with me Psenpnouthes etc.

P.Lips. I 21 (TM: 22338) Land lease Hermopolis

A.D. 382

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 8–15: βούλοµαι ἑκουσίως καὶ αὐθαιρέτως µισθώσασθαι παρά σου ἀπὸ καρπῶν τῆς εὐτυχ[οῦ]ς ἐννάτ[η]ς ἰνδικτίονο[ς] τὸ ὑπάρχον σοι ἕκτον µέρος ἀπὸ ἀρουρῶν τεσσάρων ἡµίσο̣ υς ἢ ὅσαι ἐὰν ὦ[σ]ι ἐν τῷ εδει (= ἐδάφει) περὶ Θ̣ ύνειν κατὰ κο[ι]νωνίαν Κοννάρου κοινωνοῦ̣ [ἐπὶ] τῶν λοιπῶν µερῶν κτλ. Trans.: I wish to lease voluntarily and of my own free will from you, from the harvest of the fortunate ninth indictio, a sixth part of the four and one-half arouras belonging to you, or as many as there may be, in the land by Thune, (which is owned in common) with Konnaros (your) partner as to the remaining portions etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:816.

P.Ryl. IV 706 R (TM: 32785) Petition to the Prefect Antinoopolis Connotation: marital union l. 3: πρὸς γάµου κοινωνίαν Trans.: in community of marriage

Early A.D. IV

478

Appendix

CPR V 11 (TM: 32551) Deacon’s work contract Provenance?

Early A.D. IV?

Connotation: sense unclear (participation in the ministry of the laity?) ll. 5–15: ἐπειδὴ σήµερον ἐχειροτονήθ[ην εἰς τὴν σὴν] διακονίαν καὶ προφοράν σοι ἐξεδ[όµην πρὸς] τὸ ἀπαράβλητον µε εἶναι τῆς ἐπεισ[κοπῆς σου] … ἐὰν δὲ θελήσω ἀποστῆναι ̣[ – ca. 12 – ] σου ἢ καὶ χωρὶς γραµµάτων µ̣ [ – ca. 10 – ] ρου τυχάνιν δῆθεν ἐγὼ τῆς δια ̣[ – ca. 10 – ] λα λαικῆς κοινωνίας µεταξιω ̣[ – ca. 10 – ] µην κτλ. Trans.: since today I am appointed as your deacon and have given you a declaration not to depart (cf. LSJ, s.v. ἀπαράβλητος) from your episcopate … If I wish to depart [without your consent/permission?] or without written (authorisation?) … (?) lay communion (?) etc. Trans. (ed. pr.): “If I shall wish to leave without your consent and/or without a written release, (I am to be unable to enjoy the position of deacon but I shall instead claim?) lay communion.” Trans. (Schmelz): “Da ich heute zu deinem Dienst ordiniert wurde und dir gegenüber eine Erklärung abgegeben habe, dass ich mich von deiner Bischofsherrschaft nicht entfernen werde … Wenn ich mich ohne deine Zustimmung werde entfernen wollen, und auch ohne schriftliche Erlaubnis, kann ich natürlich an deinem Dienst nicht teilnehmen, sondern nur am Gottesdienst der Laien.” Trans. (Wipszycka): “Se vorrò allontanarmi senza il tuo consenso o anche senza documenti, [che io non possa] naturalmente ottenere partecipazione al [tuo servizio], ma [... ] la comunione laica.” Biblio.: Wipszycka, JJP 22 (1992): 67–81; Schmelz, Amtsträger, 42–47.

PSI XII 1239 (TM: 17407) (= SB V 7996)

Sale contract of a third share of a house Antinoopolis

A.D. 430

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 6–9: Ὁµολογοῦµεν … πεπρακέναι σοι καὶ καταγεγραφέναι πληρεστάτ̣ω παντὶ δεσπ[ο]τικῷ δικαίῳ καὶ καλῇ πίστει τὸ ὑπάρχον ἡµῖν … τρίτον µέρος οἰκίας ὁλοκλήρου µονοστέγου οἵας ἐστὶν διαθ[έ]σεως καὶ χρηστηρίων καὶ ἀνηκόντων πάντων κατὰ κοινωνίαν τοῦ λοιποῦ διµοίρου µέρους κτλ. Trans.: we agree … to sell to you and transfer by deed, with every full right of ownership and in good faith, the property (belonging) to us … a third share of the whole onestorey house such as it is disposed and all its appurtenances, (which is to be owned) in common with the remaining two-third part etc.

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

479

SPP I, pp. 6–7, #1 (TM: 35316) (= FIRA2 3.52)

Testament

A.D. 480

Antinoopolis Connotation: co-ownership

ll. 10–21: κληρονόµος µου ἔστω ἡ εὐνουστάτη µ̣ ο̣ υ γαµετηι̣ (= γαµετὴ) [Τισοΐας ̣ ̣ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀντινοο]υ̣ πόλεως πάντων τῶν καταλειφθησ̣ ο[µένων ὑπ’ ἐµοῦ – ca. 21 – κ]ινητῶν τε καὶ ἀκινήτων … καὶ τὴν ὑπάρχουσάν µοι οἰκίαν τὴν νῦν οἰκῶ … καὶ ὁµοίως τὸ ἥµισυ τῆς αὐλῆς [ – ca. 15 – ] τῆ[ς] ἐµῆς οἰκίας καὶ χρηστηρίων καὶ ἀνηκόντων … µετὰ παντὸς τοῦ ἀνήκοντ[ος] αὐτῶν δικαίου κατὰ κοινωνίαν Χαιρήµµωνος τοῦ εὐλαβεστάτο\υ/ πρεσβυτέρου ὑπὲρ τῶν ὑπολοίπων ἡµίσους µέρους τῆς τε αὐλῆς καὶ τοῦ φρέατος κτλ. Trans. let my most benevolent wife … [Tisoia from] Antinoopolis be the heir of all that I have acquired … (?), both movable and immovable, … and the house in which I now live … and, likewise, half of the courtyard … (?) of my house with its furnitures and appurtenances … with every right of ownership, (house which is owned) in common with Chairemon the most reverent priest as to the remaining half of the courtyard and well etc. Trans. (FIRA2 3.52): heres mibi esto beneuolentissima uxor mea Aurelia Tieoia … et dimidiam partem putei pariterque atrii quae sunt ante domus meae portam … cum Chaeremmone prudentissimo presbytero communia pro residua dimidia parte putei et atrii.

BGU XII 2157 (TM: 16112) (Cf. BGU XII 2158)

Land lease (Flavius Taurinos’ archive) Hermopolis

A.D. 485

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 6–17: Ὁ̣µολογῶ ἑκουσίως κ[αὶ α]ὐθαιρέτως µεµισθῶσθαι [παρὰ τῆς] σ̣ ῆς εὐγενείας … [τ]ὸ ὑπάρχον ἐπιβά[λ]λον σοι τρίτον µέρος [ἀρουρῶν] ὅ̣σων ἐστὶν δ̣ [ια]κ̣ ειµένων ἐν τόπῳ [καλου]µ̣ ένῳ Ταριξ ἐκ λ[ι]β[ὸ]ς ̣ … κ̣ α̣ τὰ κοινων[ίαν] τοῦ [σ]οῦ ἀδε[λ]φοῦ Σαρ[α]ποδώρου εἰς συµπλήρωσ[ιν τῶν αὐτῶ]ν̣ ἀ̣ρ̣ο̣ υρῶν κα[ὶ τῶν] φυ[τ]ῶν εἰς [τὸ] κατ’ αὐ̣τ̣ὸν δ[ί]µοιρον µέ̣ρ̣ος κτλ. Trans.: I agree voluntarily and of my own free will to lease [from your] nobility … a third share of the property that belongs to you, or as many as there may be in the southern place called Tarix … (?), (which is owned) in common with your brother Sarapodoros as to the remaining two-third share of the [same] arouras and trees etc. Biblio.: Palme, APF 40 (1994): 50–51; Papathomas, P.Heid. VII 405, p. 172. On Flavius Taurinos and his family, see Maehler, BGU XII, pp. xix-xxvi; Keenan, “Soldier,” in Proceedings 20th (ed. Bülow-Jacobsen), 446–49.

480

Appendix

BGU XII 2158 (TM: 16113) (Cf. BGU XII 2157)

Land lease (Flavius Taurinos’ archive) Hermopolis

A.D. 485?

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 5–6: … (?) κατὰ κοινωνείαν τοῦ σοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Σαραποδώρου εἰς συµπλήρωσιν τῶν ὄντῶν ἀρουρῶν καὶ τῶν φυτῶν εἰς τὸ κατ’ αὐτὸν δίµοιρον µέρος κτλ. Trans.: [I wish to lease from you the property … which is owned] in common with your brother Sarapodoros as to the remaining two-third share of the arouras and trees etc. Note: the lease is very fragmented but relates to BGU XII 2157 and may concern the same plot of land. Biblio.: Palme, APF 40 (1994): 50–51; Papathomas, P.Heid. VII 405, p. 172. On Flavius Taurinos and his family, see Maehler, BGU XII, pp. xix-xxvi; Keenan, “Soldier,” in Proceedings 20th (ed. Bülow-Jacobsen), 446–49.

BGU XII 2164 (TM: 16118) Land lease (Flavius Taurinos’ archive) Hermopolis

A.D. 494

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 4–8: Ὁ̣µ̣ ο̣λογῶ ἑκ̣ [ουσίω]ς [κ]αὶ αὐθαιρέτως µεµισθῶσθαι … τὰς ὑπαρχούσας σοι ἀρούρας ε̣[ἰ]κοσιπέντε̣ … κα̣ τ̣ [ὰ] κ̣ οινω[ν]ίαν [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ξίας καὶ Θεοδώρας καὶ Θεο̣ [δ]οσίας υἱῶν Φοιβάµµωνος τοῦ σοῦ πατραδέλ̣ φ̣ ο̣ υ̣ κτλ. Trans.: I agree to lease voluntarily and of my own free will … twenty-five arouras of your property … (which is owned) in common with …xia (?) and Theodora and Theodosia, children of Phoibammon, your father’s brother etc. Biblio.: On Flavius Taurinos and his family, see Maehler, BGU XII, pp. xix-xxvi; Keenan, “Soldier,” in Proceedings 20th (ed. Bülow-Jacobsen), 446–49.

BGU XII 2172 (TM: 16124) Land lease (Flavius Taurinos’ archive) Hermopolis

A.D. 498

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 3–7: [ – ca. 50 – ὁµο]λογ̣ ῶ ἑκουσίως καὶ αὐ[θαιρέτως µεµισθῶσθαι …] … [τὰς ὑπαρχούσας … ε]ἰκοσιπέντε . . [… σὺ]ν ὁλοκλήρῳ λάκκῳ κατὰ κοινωνίαν [τῶν σῶν κατὰ πατέρα ἀνεψιῶν (?) τῶν ὑπολοίπων ἀρουρῶν ἓξ …]κτλ. Trans.: I agree to [lease] voluntarily and [of my own free will] … twenty-five arouras [of the property] … [with] the whole cistern, (which is owned) in common with (your cousins on your father’s side as for the remaining six arouras …?) etc. Biblio.: On Flavius Taurinos and his family, see Maehler, BGU XII, pp. xix-xxvi; Keenan, “Soldier,” in Proceedings 20th (ed. Bülow-Jacobsen), 446–49.

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

481

P.Lond. III 1023 (TM: 35717) Lease of a share of a house Hermopolis

A.D. V–VI

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 3–16: [ὁµο]λογῶ ἑκου[σ]ί[ω]ς καὶ αὐθαιρέτως µεµισθῶσθαι παρὰ σοῦ … τὸ ὑπάρχον σοι … τῆς αὐτῆς οἰκίας ἥµισυ µέρο[ς]… κατὰ κοινωνίαν Εὐρασίας Ἰωάννου εἰς τὸ ὑπόλοιπον ἥµισυ µέρος κτλ. Trans.: I agree to lease voluntarily and of my own free will from you … the property belonging to you, half a share of the same house … (which is owned) in common with Eurasias Ioannes as to the remaining half share etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 243 (n. 19); Baumert, Koinonein, 261–62.

BGU XII 2174 (TM: 16126) Land lease Hermopolis

A.D. 501

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 6–12: ὁµολογοῦµεν ἀ£ηλέÆυοι ὄντες καὶ ἀ£ηλανάδοχοι ἑ̣[κο]υσίως καὶ αὐθαιρέτως µεµισθῶσθαι … τὰς ὑπαρχούσας αὐτῇ ἀρούρας τρεῖς [ἀ]πὸ ἀρουρῶν ἓξ ἀνύδρων κατὰ κοινωνίαν τοῦ σοῦ ἀδελφοῦ [Σ]α̣ ρ̣απί̣ω̣ [ν]ος ̣ τῶν ἄ[λ]λων τριῶν ἀρουρ̣ ῶν κτλ. Trans.: as mutual sureties and securities, we agree to lease voluntarily and of our own free will … three arouras of your property from the six unwatered arouras (owned) in common with your brother Sarapion as to the remaining three arouras etc. Biblio.: Papathomas, P.Heid. VII 405, p. 172. On Flavius Taurinos and his family, see Maehler, BGU XII, pp. xix-xxvi; Keenan, “Soldier,” in Proceedings 20th (ed. BülowJacobsen), 446–49.

P.Stras. V 471 bis (TM: 18803) (= P.Flor. I 73)

Lease for a house Hermopolis

A.D. 505

Connotation: joint lease ll. 6–12: Ὁµολογῶ ἑκουσί̣ως καὶ αὐθαιρέτως µεµισθῶσθαι … τὸ ὑπάρχ[ον τ]ῷ δικαίῳ τῆς αὐτῆς ἁγίας ἐκκ̣ [λ]η̣ σίας ἥµισυ µέρος ὁλοκ̣ λ̣ή̣[ρ]ου οκίας οἵας ἐστὶν διαθέσεως σὺν κατ[α]γαίῳ καὶ χρησ̣ τηρί̣ο̣[ις π]ᾶσι καὶ δικαίοις κατὰ κοι̣νωνείαν ἐµοῦ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὑπο̣ [λο]ί̣που ἡµί̣σ̣ο̣ υς µέρους κτλ. Trans.: I agree to lease voluntarily and of my own free will … half a share of the whole house that belongs by right to the same holy church, such as it is disposed with its cellar and all its furnitures, with every right, in partnership as to the remaining half share etc.

482

Appendix

Trans. (Mees): “Ich stimme freiwillig und auf eigenen Wunsch zu, … , welche dem Verwaltungsvorstand derselben Heiligen Kirche gehört, des ganzen Hauses mit Kellern und allen Nebenräumen gemäß meinem Teilvertrages an der übrigen Hälfte.” Biblio.: Berger, ZVR 29 (1913): 356; Preisigke, WB 1:815; Kruse, ZPE 88 (1991): 135; Mees, Organisationsformen, 376–77.

P.Lond. III 994 (TM: 22764) Lease of a 14th-share of a potter’s workshop A.D. 517

Hermopolis Connotation: co-ownership?

ll. 7–14: [ὁµολογοῦµεν ἀλληλ]έÆυοι ὄντες κα̣ ὶ ἀ£ηλανάδοχοι ἑκουσίως καὶ αὐθαιρέτως [µεµισθῶσθαι παρὰ] σοῦ … [ – ca. ? – τεσ]σαρεσκαιδέκατον µέρος ὁλοκλήρο\υ/ κεραµίου οἵας ̣ [ἐστὶ διαθέσεως σ]ὺ̣ν κα̣ µάραις τέτταρσι καὶ καµινη (= καµίνῳ) καὶ λάκκου [ – ca. ? – καὶ ξυλι]κῷ ὀργάνῳ ἐξηρτισµένῳ πάσι ἐξαρτιω (= ἐξαρτίᾳ) καὶ χρηστηρίων̣ (= χρηστηρίοις) [µετὰ πάντων τῶ]ν ἐκεῖσε δικαίων κατὰ κοινωνίαν τῶν σῶν [ – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: as mutual securities and sureties, [we agree to lease] voluntarily and of our own free will [from] you … a 14th share of the whole potter’s workshop, such as it is disposed, with four storage rooms, a kiln, and a cistern … (?) and its wooden tools, furnished with all its equipment and appurtenances [with all] that is lawfully there, (and which is owned) in common with your … (?) etc. Trans. (Mees): “Wir kommen überein, für einander bürgend und für einander einstehend, freiwillig und auf eigenen Beschluß, … , den 14. Teil der gesamten Töpferei im aktuellen Zustand, so wie sie ist, mit vier Vorratszimmern und einem Ofen und Reservoir und hölzernem Werkzeug, ausgestattet mit der gesamten Ausrüstung und mit allem was dazu gehört, in gemeinschaftlichem Eigentum von Deiner […]” (emphasis added). Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815; Mees, Organisationsformen, 369 (ll. 2–13); Baumert, Koinonein, 262.

P.Lond. V 1693 (TM: 19711) Fragmentary land lease Aphroditopolis

A.D. 523–524

Connotation: co-ownership (cf. Bell, P.Lond. V 1693, p. 94, n. 7) ll. 3–8: … τὰς [ὑ]παρχούσας σοι γονικὰς ἀρούρας τὰς οὔ̣σ̣ας ἐν κλήρ(ῳ) Τ̣ α̣ χηπ̣ έστατ̣ ε καλούµενας Κασίνλα̣ … κατὰ κοινωνίαν πρὸς τοὺς κληρονµ(ους) τοῦ γέρ[ο]ντος Σουροῦτος Χαρισίου ὑ̣π̣ ὲρ το(ῦ) ἀλλοῦ ἡµίσους µέρους κτλ. Trans.: [I agree to lease …] your ancestral property called Kasinla which is in the lot of Tachepestate … (and which is owned) in common with the ancestral heir Souroutos Charisios as to the other half share etc.

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

483

SB XX 14669 (TM: 23784) (= P.Freer 1 und 2)

Byzantian cadastre Antaiopolites

A.D. 524

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 41–42: [ – ca. ? – ] κλ(ηρονόµοι) Τσί¶α̣ ς [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] Φοιβάµµωνο[ς] κ[ατ]ὰ κο(ινωνίαν) Κορν[ηλ]ίου πρεσ[β(υτέρου)] ὑπ(ὸ) χ̣ [ ̣ ̣]α̣ ν̣ κτλ. Cf. ll. 44, 82, 105, 131, 219, 225, 252, 265, 269, 272, 275, 279, 282, 286. Trans.: … (?) heirs of Tsilla … (?) Phoibammon (owned) in common with Cornelius the priest … (?) etc. Biblio.: Gascou and MacCoull, T&MBYZ 10 (1987): 103–58 (esp. 108); Gascou, Fiscalité, 247–305 (esp. 252); MacCoull, GRBS 50 (2010): 625–38.

BGU XIX 2822 (TM: 91731) Lease of a blacksmith workshop Hermopolis

A.D. 526

Connotation: joint lease ll. 7–18: ὁµολογῶ ἑκουσίως καὶ αὐθαιρέτως µεµισθῶσθαι … τὸ ὑπάρχον τῇ σῇ εὐδοκιµήσει τρίτον µέρος χαλκευτικοῦ ἐργα[στη]ρίου ὁλοκλήρου … [κατὰ] κ[ο]ι̣ν̣ ωνίαν τῶν ἀδελφῶν τῆς σῆς [εὐ]δ̣ οκιµή̣[σ]ε̣ω̣ ς ̣ [πρὸ]ς ̣ τ̣ ὸ̣ ὑ̣π̣ [ό]λ̣ οιπ̣ ον δ[ίµ]ο̣ ι ρ̣ ̣ο̣ ν̣ [µέ]ρος κτλ. Trans.: I agree voluntarily and of my own free will to lease … a third share of the whole blacksmith workshop that belongs to your nobility… (and which is owned) [in] common with the brothers of your nobility as to the remaining two-third share etc.

SB VI 9193 (TM: 17867) Fragmentary sale contract of a piece of land Hermopolites

A.D. 527–565

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 4–12: … πεπρακ[έναι σήµερόν σοι τῷ] θαυµασιωτάτῳ Βίκτορι τῷ ὠνουµένῳ … ἄµµατα δέκα δίµοιρον σπόρι[µα] ἄνυδρα ἀτελης γῆς … ἀπὸ ἀρούρης ἡµίσεως πορίµη̣ ς γῆς ἀνυδρον κατὰ κοινωνίαν Ἁλῆτος καὶ Θέκλας ὁµογνησίων µου ἀδελφῶν κτλ. Trans.: [I acknowledge] … to have sold [today to you], most illustrious Victor, the purchaser, … ten and two thirds ammata of unwatered, untaxed, seed land … from the half aroura of unwatered, seed land (which I own) in common with my blood brothers Aletos and Thekla etc. Trans. (Wegener): “[I acknowledge …] … that I have sold to-day to you the most marvellous Victor, the purchaser, … the ten and two-thirds ‘ammata’, seed-land, unwatered, which I possess and which have been transferred to me by right of exchange by the most honoured Victor, the purchaser, … , consisting of a half aroura of unwatered seed-land, in partnership with my full brothers Hales and Thecla” (emphasis added). Biblio.: Wegener, JEA 23 (1937): 217–19; Papathomas, P.Heid. VII 405, p. 172.

484

Appendix

P.Berl.Zill. 6 (TM: 17286) Sale contract of a share of a house Antinoopolis

A.D. 527–565

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 10–31: ὁµολογοῦµεν ἡµεῖς οἱ προγεγραµµένοι … πεπρακέναι σοὶ τῷ αὐτῷ λαµπροτάτῳ Ἰωάννῃ … τὸ ὑπάρχον ἡµῖν … µετὰ τοῦ ἐπιβάλλοντος διµοίρου µέρους τοῦ φρέατος καὶ τῆς αἴθρου καὶ τῆς εἰσόδου καὶ ἐξόδου, κατὰ κοινωνίαν Θεοφίλης εἰς τὰ ὑ[πόλοιπα µέρη εἰς συµπλ]ήρωσιν τῆς πάσης οἰκείας κτλ. Trans.: we, the aforementioned (so and so), agree … to have sold to you most illustrious Ioannes … the property (belonging) to us … with the two-third share of the well, atrium, entrance and exit, (property which is owned) in common with Theophiles as to the [remaining share] of the whole house etc.

BGU XIX 2808 (TM: 91717) Land lease Hermopolis

A.D. 528

Connotation: co-ownership? joint lease? ll. 9–12: [ – ca. 12 – ὑδρ]οστασίων καὶ εἰς σ̣ [ – ca. 30 – ]ν ἀπὸ ἀρουρῶν [ – ca. 14 – ]ν ἐν γεωργίῳ καλ̣ [ουµένῳ – ca. 25 – ] κατὰ κο̣ ι[̣ ν]ωνία[ν – ca. 22 – χρυ]σοχόου εἰς [τὰς ἄ¶ας ἀρο]ύ̣ρας τ̣ρ̣[ – ca. 32 – ] ̣ ̣ ̣[ – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: in the field (called …?) in partnership (?) etc.

SB XIV 12051 (TM: 15528) Land lease Hermopolis

A.D. 541

Connotation: co-ownership? joint lease? ll. 6–11: [Ὁµολογῶ ἑκουσίως κα]ὶ α̣ ὐθα̣ ι ρ̣ έτως µεµισθῶσθαι παρὰ τῆς σῆς [ – ca. ? – ἐπὶ τετ]ραετῆ χρό̣νο̣ ν … καὶ αὐτῆς τὰ ὑπάρ[χοντα – ca. ? – ]κ̣ [ό]σ̣ ι̣[α] π̣ ε ν̣ τήκοντα τρία τρίτον ἀπὸ ἀρο[υ]ρῶν [ – ca. ? – ] ̣ ̣[ ̣] πέντε κα̣ τὰ κοινωνί̣αν τῶν ἄ¶ων ἐ̣κεῖσε [ – ca. ? – λ]ο̣ ι π̣ ̣ οὺς ἀ̣ρούρας τέσσαρας κτλ. Trans.: [I agree voluntarily and] of my own free will to lease from you … (?) for four years the property … (?) fifty three and a third from … (?) arouras … (?) five, (which is owned) in common/(leased) in partnership (?) with the others there … (?) as to the remaining four arouras etc. Biblio.: Sijpesteijn, Talanta 6 (1975): 51–52.

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

485

P.Cair.Masp. I 67118 (TM: 19049) (Cf. P.Cair.Masp. I 67117)

Transfer of tax payment Aphroditopolis

A.D. 547

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 11–16: Σ̣ωµ̣ α[τί]σ̣ ατε καὶ µετ’ενέγκατε ε̣ἰ̣ς ἐµὸ̣ν ὄνοµα … τ̣ ὴ̣ν συντέλειαν τοῦ ἡµίσους µ[έρ]ους \αυτ ̣ ̣ ̣τ̣ ο(υ)/ κτήµατ[ος] τόπο(υ) Πισραηλίο(υ), κατὰ κο̣ ιν̣ ω̣ ν̣ ί̣αν \µ̣ ον(αστηρίου) κ̣ [α]λ̣ [(ουµένου)(?)] Κλεοπάτρα̣ ς/ κτλ. Trans.: Register and put in my name … the tax contribution for half a share … (?) of the property of the place of Pisraelios, (owned) in common with the monastery called Kleopatra of the holy place Father Michaelios etc. Biblio.: Mirković, “Ammonios,” in Proceedings 25th (ed. Gagos), 571–72.

P.Stras. IV 247 (TM: 16979) Lease of a share of a house Hermopolis

A.D. 551

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 6–13: Ὁµολογῶ ἑκουσίως καὶ [αὐθαιρέτως µεµισθῶσθαι παρ’ ὑµῶν ἐφ’ ὅσον βούλεσθε] χρόνον … τὸ ὑπάρχον ὑµῖν ἐπιβάλλον καὶ [ – ca. ? – µέρος ὁλοκλή]ρου οἰκίας οἵας ἐστὶν διαθέσεως µονοστέγου [ – ca. ? – ].ης καὶ ἀδιαιρέ̣του κατὰ κοινωνείαν ἐµοῦ τοῦ [ – ca. ? – Κολ]λούθου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων κοινωνῶν ὑπὲρ τῶν [ – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: I acknowledge [to have leased] voluntarily and [of my own free will from you, for as long as you wish] … a [share of the whole?] one-storey house belonging to you, as it is disposed … (?), and (owned) undivided in common with me son of Kollouthes (?) and with the other co-owners etc.

SB XIV 12131 (TM: 18191) (= SB VI 9292)

Land lease

Hermopolis

A.D. 553

Connotation: co-ownership? joint lease? (papyrus very fragmented) ll. 4–8: [Ὁµολογῶ ἑκουσίως] καὶ αὐθαιρέτως µεµισθῶσθαι παρά σου … τὴν ὑπάρχουσάν σοι σπορίµης γῆς [ἄρουραν µίαν ἀπὸ γεωργείου] ἀ̣ρ̣ ουρῶν πέντε κατὰ κοινωνίαν [τοῦ – ca. ? – τῶν ὑ]πολοίπων ἀρουρῶν κτλ. Trans.: [I agree] to lease [voluntarily] and of my own free will from you … your property of seed land, [one aroura from the arable] five arouras, (which is owned) in common/(leased) in partnership (?) … (?) of the remaing arouras etc. Trans. (Maehler): “(… Ich erkläre, freiwillig), und aus eigenem Entschluss von dir gepachtet zu haben die dir gehörende (eine Arure) Saatlandes (aus einem Gut) von fünf Aruren, (die dir gehört) in Gemeinschaft (mit NN.) hinsichtlich der übrigen Aruren.” Biblio.: Gerstinger, WS 69 (1956): 241–44; Maehler, ZPE 25 (1977): 187–88.

486

Appendix

P.Stras. V 474 (TM: 18806) Land lease Hermopolis

A.D. 553?

Connotation: co-ownership? joint lease? (papyrus very fragmented) ll. 5–10: [Ὁµολογῶ ἑκουσίως καὶ αὐθαιρέτως µεµι]σθῶσθαι παρὰ τῆς αὐτῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας … [τὰς ὑπαρχούσας τ]ῷ δικαίῳ τῆς αὐτῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας σπορίµης γῆς ἀρούρας δύο … καὶ παντὸς [δικαίου τοῦ αὐτο]ῦ̣ γεωργίου ἀρουρῶν τεσσαράκοντα κατὰ κοινωνίαν τῶν λοιπῶν [µισθωτῶν ὑπὲρ τῶν ὑπολ]οίπων ἀρουρῶν τριάκοντα ὀκτώ κτλ. Trans.: [I agree voluntarily and of my own free will] to lease from the holy church … the lawful [property] of the holy church, two arouras of seed land … and every [right] of the said field of forty arouras, (which is owned) in common/(leased) in partnership (?) with the other [lessees? as to] the remaining thirty-eight arouras etc.

BGU XVII 2684 (TM: 69755) Lease of a share of a house Hermopolis

A.D. 555

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 7–11: ὁµολο̣γ̣ [ῶ ἑκουσίως] καὶ αὐ[θαιρ]έ̣τ̣ω̣ ς ̣ µεµισθῶσθαι [παρὰ τῆς σ]ῆς εὐγενείας … [τὸ ὑπάρχ]ον σ[οι] τ̣ έ̣τ̣α̣ ρ̣ τ̣ο̣ ν̣ µέρος ὁλοκλήρου [οἰκίας οἵ]ας ἐστὶν διαθέσεως διστέγου σὺν καταγαίῳ καὶ [ – ca. 9 – ] ι̣ [καὶ] χρηστηρίοις πᾶσι καὶ δ̣ ι κ̣ ̣ αίοις [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣σης καὶ ἀδιαιρέτου κατὰ κοινωνείαν τῆς σῆς ἀδε̣λ̣ φ̣ ῆ̣ς Ε̣ ὐ̣γ̣ ε ν̣ ̣ ε ̣ί̣α̣ [ς ὑ]πὲρ ἄλλου τετάρτου µέρους κτλ. Trans.: I agree [voluntarily] and of my own free will to lease [from your] nobility … a fourth share of the whole two-storey [house] (belonging) to you, as it is disposed, with its cellar … (?), its appurtenances, and every right … (?), undivided, (and owned) in common with your sister for the other fourth part etc.

P.Horak 10 (TM: 78366) Land lease Hermopolites

A.D. 555

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 7–14: ὁµολογῶ ἑκουσίως καὶ αὐθαιρέτως [µεµισθῶσθαι παρὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἁγίων µαρτυρίων ἐπὶ τρ]ι̣ετῆ χρόνον … ἀρούρας ἑπτὰ τρίτον σπορίµης γῆς … [ – ca. 22 – καὶ παντὸς δικαίου τοῦ αὐτοῦ γε]ω̣ ργίου καλουµένου Τβωτη ἀρουρῶν τριάκοντα [ – ca. 45 – ἀδι]αιρέτου κατὰ κοινωνείαν τῶν ἄλλων κοινωνῶν [ – ca. 48 – ]ος κτλ. Trans.: I acknowledge [to have leased] voluntarily and of my own free will [from the holy martyrion for] three years … seven and a third arouras of seed land … [… and of every right of the same] field called Tbote, 30 arouras … , owned in common undivided with the other partners … (?) etc. Biblio.: Drew-Bear, “La paraphylaké,” in Proceedings 25th (ed. Gagos), 190.

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

487

P.Stras. IV 248 (TM: 16980) Lease of a share of a house Hermopolis

A.D. 560

Connotation: joint lease ll. 4–9: Ὁµολογῶ [ἑ]κο[υσί]ως καὶ [αὐθ]αιρέτως µ[εµ]ι̣[σ]θ̣ ῶσθαι π[αρά σου] … ἥµισυ τ̣ έταρτον µέρος [τῆς] ὁλοκ̣ λ̣ήρου οἰκία[ς οἵ]ας ἐστὶν διαθέσεως σὺν καταγαίῳ καὶ αὐλῇ καὶ φρέατι [κα]ὶ̣ [χ]ρ̣η̣ [σ]τ̣ η ρίοις πᾶσι καὶ δικαίοις κατὰ κοινωνε̣ί̣[α]ν τοῦ ἐµοῦ ἀδελφ[ο]ῦ Πέτ̣ [ρο]υ ἐπ̣ [ὶ] τὸ ὑπόλοιπον τέταρτον µέρος κτλ. Trans.: I agree voluntarily and of my own free will to lease [from you] … half of a fourth share of [the] whole house, as it is disposed, with a cellar, a courtyard, a well, furnitures, with every right, in partnership with my brother Petros for the remaining fourth share etc.

P.Cair.Masp. I 67006 V (TM: 18982) Petition Antinoopolis?

ca. A.D. 566/570

Connotation: marital union l. 16: πρὸς γάµον καὶ βίου γαινωνίαν Trans.: in community of life and marriage

P.Cair. Masp. II 67155 (TM: 18910) Deed of divorce Antinoopolis

A.D. 566–573

Connotation: marital union l. 11: πρὸ[ς] γάµου καὶ βί̣ου νοµίµο̣ υ κ̣ οι[ν]ων̣ ία̣ ν̣ Trans.: in lawful community of life and marriage

P.Cair.Masp. II 67153 (TM: 18907) Deed of divorce Antinoopolis Connotation: marital union ll. 8–9: πρὸς γάµο̣ [ν] καὶ βίου κοινωνίαν Trans.: in community of life and marriage Biblio.: Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 15.

A.D. 568

488

Appendix

P.Lond. IV 1713 (TM: 19730) (Duplicate of P.Flor. I 93)

Deed of divorce

Antinoopolis

A.D. 569

Connotation: marital union ll. 15–16: πρὸς γάµου κα̣ [ὶ] β̣ ί̣[ου κοι]νων̣ ί̣α̣ ν̣ Trans.: in community of life and marriage Biblio.: Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 15.

P.Lond. IV 1712 (TM: 19729) Deed of divorce Antinoopolis

A.D. 569

Connotation: marital union ll. 8–9: πρὸς ἐννόµου καὶ βίου κοινωνίαν Trans.: in lawful community of life and marriage Biblio.: Rowlandson, Women, 211–12, #156.

P.Flor. I 93 (TM: 23587) (= M.Chr. 297; FIRA2 3.22)

Deed of divorce

Antinoopolis

ca. A.D. 569

Connotation: marital union l. 10: πρὸς γάµου καὶ βίου κοινωνίαν Trans.: in community of marriage and life Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ , 15; Gaudemet, Le droit, 297–98, #78.

P.Ross.Georg. V 32 (TM: 17532) Lease of a house Antinoopolis (?)

ca. A.D. 569/570

Connotation: joint lease? (papyrus very fragmented) ll. 10–14: [ὁµολογῶ µ]εµίσθωσθαι παρ’ ὑµῶν … [τῆς π]αρούσ̣ η̣ ς ̣ τρίτης ἐπινεµήσεως κα̣ [ὶ αὐτῆς – ca. ? – ]ων [οἴ]κηµα κατὰ κοινωνίαν ὑπ[ – ca. ? – κα]θ’ ἡµίσ̣ [ι]αν µοῖραν κτλ. Trans.: [I agree] to lease from you the available third portion … (?) house in partnership … (?) according to half a share etc.

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

489

P.Cair.Masp. I 67121 (TM: 19052) Deed of divorce Aphroditopolis

A.D. 573

Connotation: marital union l. 7: εἰς γάµ̣ ου κοινωνίαν Trans.: in community of marriage

P.Heid. VII 405 (TM: 21668) Land lease Hermopolites

A.D. 577

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 5–10: ὁµο̣λ̣ [ογ]ῶ̣ ἑκουσίως ̣ [καὶ αὐθαιρέτως µεµισθῶσθαι παρὰ σ]ο̣ ῦ … [καὶ αὐτῆς τὴν ὑπάρχουσάν σοι ἄρου]ρ̣ α̣ ν̣ µίαν σπορίµης γῆς ἄνυδρον ἀπὸ ἀρουρῶν [τριῶν σπορίµης γῆς ἀνύδρων κατ]ὰ κοινωνίαν τῆς εὐγενεστάτη[ς Ε]ὐφρα̣ ντία̣ ς [ – ca. ? – τῶν ἀρουρῶν] δύο κτλ. Trans.: I agree voluntarily [and of my own free will to lease from] you … one aroura [belonging to you] of unwatered seed land from [three] arouras of [unwatered seed land] (which are owned) in common with the noble Euphrantia (as to the remaining?) two [arouras] etc.

P.Lond. V 1727 (TM: 19741) (= Sel.Pap. I 86; FIRA2 3.67)

Parental division of property Syene

A.D. 583–584

Connotation: marital union l. 9: εἰς γάµου κοινωνία̣ ν Trans.: in community of marriage

P.Lond. V 1731 (TM: 19746) (= FIRA2 3.23)

Receipt for money in settlement of dispute Syene Connotation: marital union l. 10: εἰς νοµίµου γάµου κοινωνίαν Trans.: in lawful community of marriage Biblio.: Rowlandson, Women, 79–80, #62 (ll. 1–20).

A.D. 585

490

Appendix

P.Herm. 29 (TM: 21132) (= SB VI 9278; C.Pap.Jud. III 513)

Deed of divorce

Hermopolis

A.D. 586

Connotation: marital union l. 9: πρὸς ἔννοµον γάµον καὶ βίου κοινωνί\αν/ Trans.: in community of life and marriage

SB XX 14671 (TM: 38507) (= P.Got. 20)

Fragment of a land cadastre Aphrodites

Early A.D. VI

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 23–27 (cf. ll. 44–48): ὑπὸ Ἀ̣πο£[ – ca. ? – ] ἐν ἀφ(έσει) ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ – ca. ? – ] ἀπὸ ἐκβ[ο]λ[(ῆς) ̣] ̣ κτ ̣ ̣[ – ca. ? – ] ὑπὸ Κ̣ ινα̣ φ̣ [Κ]α̣ στρησιανοῦ [ – ca. ? – ] κατὰ κ̣ οι(νωνίαν) [Πα]ν̣ ολ̣ β̣ ίου κτλ. Trans.: (ll. 23–27) by Apollos (?) … (?) non-cultivated … (?) by eviction (?) … (?) by Kinaph, son of Kastresianos … (?) owned in common with Panolbios etc. Note: Frisk (P.Got. 20, p. 38) was unsure about the meaning of the abbreviation κατὰ κοι and suggested either κατὰ κοι(νόν) or κατὰ κοί(την). The similarities of this document with the Aphrodito cadastre (SB XX 14669) makes the reading κατὰ κοι(νωνίαν) much more likely, however. Cf. Gascou and MacCoull, T&MBYZ 10 (1987): 149–51. Biblio.: Gascou and MacCoull, T&MBYZ 10 (1987): 149–51; Gascou, Fiscalité, 295–98.

SB XVIII 13584 (TM: 36280) (Description in P.Lond. III 1013)

Fragmentary land lease

Hermopolis

mid-A.D. VI

Connotation: co-ownership? joint lease? ll. 3–12: [Ὁµολογῶ ἐγὼ ὁ προγεγ]ραµµένος Σιλβανὸς ἑκουσίως καὶ αὐθαιρέτως µεµισθῶσθαι … [ – ca. ? – ἀρ]ουρῶν̣ δύο τετάρτ̣ [ο]υ̣ κατὰ κοι̣νωνίαν τοῦ σοῦ ἀδελφοῦ [ – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: [I], the aforementioned Silvanus [agree] to lease voluntarily and of my own free will … two arouras and a fourth (owned) in common/(leased) in partnership (?) with your brother etc.

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

491

SB XX 14670 (TM: 38506) (= P.Cair.Masp. II 67140, ll. 1–16)

Fragment of a land cadastre

mid-A.D. VI

Aphrodites Connotation: co-ownership

ll. 1–13: [Γ]νῶ[σ(ις) ἀ]ρο[υρῶν τοῦ] µεγαλοπρ[επε(στάτου) κόµε]τος Ἀµµω̣ ν̣ ί[ου] … ὀ̣ν̣ ό̣(µατος) Ἰω[άν]νου Μ[ουσαίου] κα̣ τὰ̣ κο(ινωνίαν) Εἰρήν[ης] ἀδελφ(ῆς) ἀπὸ (ἀρουρῶν) θ δ(ενδρικῆς) θ κτλ. Trans.: list of arouras of the great [comes] Ammonios … in the name of Ioanne Mousaios, (owned) in common with his sister Eirene, from 9 (arouras), 9 wooded (arouras) etc. Biblio.: Mirković, “Ammonios,” in Proceedings 25th (ed. Gagos), 567–68; Gascou, Fiscalité, 293–95.

P.Oxy. XVI 1901 (TM: 37875) Will of Flavius Pousi Oxyrhynchos

A.D. VI

Connotation: sense unclear (papyrus too fragmented) Frag. 6, ll. 46–47: γεγενηµένης µ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣µ̣ ο̣ υ̣ κ̣ ο̣ ι ν̣ ̣ ω̣ ν̣ ί̣α̣ ς µετ̣ὰ̣ ̣ ̣[ – ca. 14 – ]µητρό κτλ.

P.Cair.Masp. I 67098 (TM: 19028) Fragmentary sale contract of land Antaiopolites?

A.D. VI

Connotation: co-ownership? ll. 2–11: [ – ca. ? – ὁµολογῶ διὰ ταύτης µου τῆς] ἐγ̣ [γρά]φου ἀσφαλε̣ί̣ας η̣ [ – ca. ? – ] … διακείµενον ἐν πε̣διά̣δ̣ [ι] κώ[µης – ca. ? – ἀρουρῶν] τῶν κατὰ κοινωνίαν ο[ὐ]σῶ[ν – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: [I agree to have sold by this] written guarantee … [the property] situated in the plain … (?) (which is owned) in common (?) … (?) etc.

P.Lond. V 1795 (TM: 36951) Partnership contract Hermopolis

A.D. VI

Connotation: business partnership ll. 11–15: ἡ ὁµολογία κύρα κ̣ α̣ ὶ̣ [βε]β̣ αία δισσὴ γραφῖση ὁµότυπος καὶ ἐπερ(ωτηθέντες) ὡµολ(ογήσαµεν). Α[ὐρ(ήλιος)] ̣ ̣ ̣α̣ ς Βίκτωρος καὶ Πέτρος Κούνθω οἱ προ\κ/(είµενοι) ἐθέµεθα τ[ὴν] ὁ̣µ̣ [ολο]γ̣ ίαν τ̣ ῆς κοινωνείας κτλ. Trans.: The agreement (is) valid, the double written identical (document) guaranteed, and we have agreed through stipulatio (cf. LSJ, s.v. ἐπερωτάω 5.). We, the aforementioned

492

Appendix

Aurelius … (?) Victor and Petros Kounthos (Quintus?), made this partnership agreement etc. Biblio.: Taubenschlag, ZRG 52 (1932): 75; Steinwenter, “Gesellschaftsrechte,” in Studi Riccobono (ed. Riccobono), 503 (n. 69); Montevecchi, La papirologia, 225; Jakab, Tyche 16 (2001): 76; Jakab and Manthe, “Recht,” in Rechtskulturen (ed. Manthe), 304.

P.Lond. V 1769 (TM: 36940) Fragmentary lease of a vineyard Hermopolites

A.D. VI

Connotation: co-ownership? ll. 5–8: … σὺν λάκκοις δυσὶ καὶ δεξαµενῇ καὶ [ξυλίνοι]ς ̣ ὀργάνοις δυσὶ ἐξηρτισµένοις καὶ παντὶ δικαίῳ κατὰ κοινωνείαν τῆς εὐγενεστάτης [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ας Σαραπίωνος εἰς τὰ ὑπόλοιπα µέρη εἰς συµπλήρωσιν τοῦ ὁλοκλήρου [χωρίου] ἀµπελι̣κο̣ ῦ̣ κτλ. Trans.: [I agree to lease … the property?] with the two cisterns, reservoir, and the two [wooden] tools, with every right, in partnership with the most noble (…?) Sarapion as to the remaining share of the whole vineyard etc. Biblio.: Papathomas, P.Heid. VII 405, p. 172; Drew-Bear, “La paraphylaké,” in Proceedings 25th (ed. Gagos), 194–95.

P.Lond. V 1878 (TM: 36983) Fragmentary land lease Provenance?

A.D. VI

Connotation: co-ownership? joint lease? Text: (traces of 7 lines) ἀπὸ ἀρουρῶν δύο κατὰ κοινωνίαν ἐµ̣ ο̣ ῦ̣ κα̣ ὶ̣ τῶν ἐµῶν ἀδελφῶν κτλ. Trans.: from two arouras (owned) in common/(leased) in partnership (?) by me and my brothers etc.

SB XIV 12043 (TM: 35887) Deed of divorce Arsinoites Connotation: marital union ll. 3–4: πρὸς ἔννοµον γάµον καὶ βίου κοινωνίαν Trans.: in lawful community of life and marriage Biblio.: Sijpesteijn, Talanta 6 (1975): 38–39.

A.D. VI

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

493

SB XX 14416 (TM: 38454) Fragmentary lease of a vineyard Hermopolis

A.D. VI

Connotation: co-ownership? joint lease? ll. 4–6: [ – ca. ? – διακειµ( )] ἐ̣ν πεδιάδι τῆς αὐτῆς κ̣ [ώµης – ca. ? – τῶ]ν ἀθλοφόρων µαρτύρων τὸ κατὰ κοινωνίαν υ ̣[ – ca. ? –τ]ὴν εὐγενεστάτην Εὐδ̣ ο̣ ξία̣ ν̣ ἀνὰ τὸ ἥµισυ µέρος ἐφ̣ [ – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: … [situated?] in the plain of the same [village?] … of the victorious martyrs (owned) in common/(leased) in partnership (?) … (?) the noble Eudoxia for half a share etc.

SPP VIII 981 (TM: 37997) Receipt Arsinoites

Late A.D. VI

Connotation: partnership? association? (context unclear) ll. 2–5: παράσχο(υ) Παύλῳ (καὶ) Θεοδώρῳ Φῖβ Κώνωνος (ὑπὲρ) κοινων(ίας) ιδ ἰν(δικτίονος) σίτου καγ’κέλλ\ῳ/ ἀρτάβας εἴκοσι µίαν (καὶ) νοµισµάτια πέντε ῥυπαρά κτλ. Note: an alternative reading might be Θεοδώρῳ Φῖβ Κώνωνος κοινων(ῷ), i.e., to Theodoros Phib, son of Konon, (his) partner. Trans.: pay to Paulos and Theodoros Phib, son of Konon, (on behalf) of the partnership/association (?), on the 14th indictio year, 21 arouras of grain and 5 silver-dirty coins etc. Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:816.

P.Oxf. 16 (TM: 36097) Land lease Hermopolites

A.D. VI–VII

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 2–6: Ταυρ[ιννοήθου κο]ιν̣[ωνοῦ καὶ τ]ῶν αὐτ̣ο̣ ῦ̣ κ̣ ο̣ ι [̣ ν]ωνῶν εἰς τὰ[ς] λοιπὰς ̣ [ἀ]ρούρας, ἐ[ν] δὲ ἄλλῳ τόπῳ τὰ ὑπόλοιπα ἄµµατα τεσσαράκοντα δύο ἀπὸ ἀρουρῶν τεσσάρων ἡµίσους … κατὰ κοινωνίαν τοῦ αὐτοῦ Ταυριν̣ νοήθου καὶ τῶν αὐτοῦ κοινωνῶν εἰς τὰς λοιπὰς ἀρούρας κτλ. Trans.: (…?) of Taurinnoethos (…?) and his associates for the remaining arouras, and in another place the remaining forty-two ammata from the four and a half arouras … (which is owned) in common with the same Taurinnoethos and his associates for the remaining arouras etc. Biblio.: Baumert, Koinonein, 263.

494

Appendix

P.Flor. I 13 (TM: 38397) Fragmentary lease of a house Hermopolis

A.D. VI–VII

Connotation: joint lease? ll. 2–11: … σοι ἥµισυ µέρος … ἀπὸ οἰκίας δ̣ ιακε̣ι µ̣ έ̣(νης) ἐπὶ τῆς Ἑρµουπολίτω̣ ν̣ … κ[α]τὰ κο[ι]νωνίαν τῆς σῆς ἀδελφῆς Μαρίας ὑπὲρ ἄλλου ἡµίσεως µέρους κτλ. Trans.: [I agree to lease?] to you half a share … of the house which is located in Hermopolis … in partnership with your sister Maria as to the other half share etc. Note: the beginning of the agreement is missing, but l. 20 plainly shows that it consists of a lease (ἡ µίσθωσις κυρία καὶ βεβαία). Biblio.: Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ ,; Baumert, Koinonein, 263.

SB XIV 12049 (TM: 35890) Land lease Hermopolis

A.D. VI–VII?

Connotation: joint lease ll. 2–9: [Ὁµολογῶ ἑκουσίως καὶ] αὐθαιρέτως µεµισθῶσθαι παρὰ τῆς σῆς [εὐγενείας …] … µέρει τοῦ ἐκεῖσε λάκκου καὶ τοῦ τ̣ όπου [ – ca. 14 – καὶ βο]οστασίου καὶ παντὸς δικαίου ἀπὸ ἀρουρῶν [δέκα – ca. 10 – κατὰ κο]ινωνίαν τῶν ὑπολοίπων κοινωνῶν [ὑπὲρ τῶν ὑπολοίπων ἀρου]ρ[ῶ]ν κτλ. Trans.: [I agree voluntarily and] of my own free will to have leased from your nobility a part of the cistern there and of the room … (?) and of the ox-stall with every right (associated with) the [ten?] arouras … [in] partnership with the remaining partners [for the remaining arouras] etc. Biblio.: Sijpesteijn, Talanta 6 (1975): 45–48.

BGU XIX 2814 (TM: 91723) Land lease Hermopolis

A.D. VI–VII?

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 4–6: … γῄδια τοῦ [ – ca. ? – ] Ἀδωρᾶς κατὰ κοινωνίαν τοῦ εὐκτηρίου τοῦ [ἁγίου – ca. ? – ] Κολλούθου κτλ. Trans.: … plot of … (?) of Adora, owned in common with the chapel of (Saint?) Kollothos etc. Biblio.: Syrkou, ZPE 152 (2005): 200–202; Drew-Bear, “La paraphylaké,” in Proceedings 25th (ed. Gagos), 193.

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

495

SB VI 9586 (TM: 19106) Contract for the sale of a part of a house Hermopolis

A.D. 600

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 8–16: [Ὁµολογ]ῶ διὰ ταύτης µου τῆς ἐγγράφου ἀσφαλίας … [π]ε̣πρακέναι σοι τῇ αὐτῇ Εὐφηµίᾳ Ἰσακίου … ἥ̣µ̣ ισυ µέρος ἀπὸ ὁλοκλήρου ἑνὸς µικροῦ κοιτῶνος … κατὰ [κοι]ν̣ ω̣ νίαν σου τῆς ὠνουµένης Εὐφηµίας ὑπὲρ ἄ̣£̣̣ ο̣ υ̣ [ἡµίσους] µ̣ έ̣ρ̣ο̣ υ̣ ς ̣ τ̣ο̣ ῦ̣ αὐτοῦ κοιτῶνος κτλ. Trans.: [I acknowledge] through this written guarantee of mine … to have sold to you the said Euphemia, daughter of Isak, … half a share of the whole, one small bed-chamber … (which is to be owned) in common with you Euphemia, the purchaser, as to the other [half] of the said bed-chamber etc. Biblio.: Gerstinger, JöByz 5 (1956): 1–6.

P.Ross.Georg. V 42 (TM: 17534) Fragmentary land lease Hermopolites

A.D. 602?

Connotation: co-ownership? joint lease? ll. 7–9: κό̣[µετι – ca. ? – σοὶ δὲ τῷ λογιωτά]τῳ Κο£ούθῳ [σχο]λαστικῷ ὑπὲρ αἰλα̣ [ιο]υ̣ ρ[γίου – ca. ? ἀρουρῶν εἴκοσι ἑπ]τὰ ἡµίσεως κατὰ κοινωνίαν τοῦ µοναστηρ[ίου] τῶ[ν ἁγίων ἀθλοφόρων (?) – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: [I agree to lease …?] … [to you the erudite?] scholastikos Kollouthos … [twentyseven arouras of olive grove?) half (of which is owned) in common/(leased) in partnership (?) with the monastery of [the victorious saints ?] etc.

SB VI 8988 (TM: 17841) Settlement concerning the share of a house Apollonopolis Magna

A.D. 647

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 10–16: Θέκλα, ἡ µακαρία θυγάτηρ Ἰακόβου Κᾶνα, [ὑπέθ]ετο Φιλήµωνι καὶ Θέκλᾳ τῇ αὐτοῦ συµβίῳ δι’ ἐγγράφου ὑποθηκιµαίας ἀσφαλείας … τὸ ὁλόκληρον αὐτῆς µέρος ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας τῶν κληρο(νόµων) ρο( ) Κ[α]ραύνη διακειµένης ἐν τῷ ὑψώµατι τῆς πόλεως κατὰ κοινωνίαν Φιλήµωνος καὶ τῆς συµβίου [αὐ]τ̣ [οῦ] κτλ. Trans.: Thekla, the blessed daughter of Iakob Kana, mortgaged for Philemon and Thekla, his wife, through this written mortgage guarantee … the entire portion of the house of the heirs … (?) Karaune, which is located in the elevated area of the city (and owned) in common by Philemon and his wife etc. Biblio.: Zilliacus, Eranos 38 (1940): 94–107.

496

Appendix

BGU XIX 2815 (TM: 91724) Land lease Hermopolis

A.D. VII

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 6–8: ἄρουραν µίαν σπορίµης ἀνύδρου γῆς ἀπ’ ἀρουρῶν τριῶν κατὰ κοινωνί[αν] τοῦ εὐαγοῦς ε[ὐ]κ̣ τηρίου τῆς ἁγίας Μ̣ α̣ ρία̣ ς ̣ κτλ. Trans.: one aroura of non-irrigated, seed land from the three arouras (owned) in common with the holy chapel of Saint Mary etc. Biblio.: Drew-Bear, “La paraphylaké,” in Proceedings 25th (ed. Gagos), 193.

B.3.1 Κοινωνία – Doubtful Reading P.Münch. III 77 (TM: 31627) Petition over an inheritance? Hermopolites?

A.D. III

Connotation: marital union l. 10: πρ̣[ὸ]ς ̣ γάµου κο̣ [ινωνίαν – ca. ? – ] Trans.: in community of marriage

P.Sakaon 67 (TM: 13084) (= P.Thead. 6)

Land lease

Theadelphia

A.D. 321/2

Connotation: joint lease (share-cropping/colonia partiaria) ll. 2–7: βούλ[ο]µαι [µισθώ]σ̣ α̣ σ̣ θαι παρὰ σοῦ τὰς ὑπαρχού̣σας σοι περὶ τὴν αὐτὴν κώµην [Θεαδέλ]φιαν σιτικὰς ἀρούρας εἴκοσι … ἐπὶ κοι[νωνίᾳ ἡ]µίσι µ̣ έρι ἐµοὶ τῷ µεµισθωµένῳ τῶν τοῦ ἔτους [ἐκβησο]µ̣ έ̣νων καρπῶν ἄνευ φόρου καὶ ἐκφορίου κτλ. Trans.: I wish to lease from you twenty arouras of seed land from your property by the same village of Theadelphia … in partnership, with half of the yearly produce going to me, the lessee, without rent or tax etc. Biblio.: Wessely, WfKlPh 30/31 (1913): 819; Johnson and West, Byzantine Egypt, 76; Hennig, Bodenpacht, 6 (n. 35); Herrmann, Bodenpacht, 209; Taubenschlag, LGRE, 358–59 (n. 18).

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

497

P.Oxy. XLIII 3126 (TM: 16005) Petition to a logistes (i.e., auditor) Oxyrhynchos

A.D. 328

Connotation: co-ownership (cf. ll. R.1, 6–8; R.2, l. 9) R. 2, ll. 1–3: Σεπτίµιο̣ [ς Ζένιος λογι]σ̣ τῇ Ὀξυρυγχ[ίτου] χ̣ [α]ίρε̣[ι]ν̣· αν̣[ – ca. 10 – ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ – ca. ? – ] τῇ ἐµῇ καθο̣ [σιώσ]ει καὶ φρόντισον εἰ µὴ περὶ τῆς κοιν̣[ωνίας τοῦ] οἰκοπέδου µηδ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ – ca. ? – ] τὴν δια̣ ίρεσιν τού[το]υ κατὰ τὸ δίκαιο̣ ν ποιήσασθαι. ἔρρωσο. Trans.: Septimius Zenios to the logistes of Oxyrhynchos. Greetings … (?) to my Honour and consider concerning the common ownership of the property (?) that the division of this (matter) be done according to what is just. Farewell.

SPP XX 121 (TM: 18742) (Cf. BL I, p. 421; II.2, p. 164)

Sale contract of agricultural land Hermopolis

A.D. 438

Connotation: co-ownership ll. 6–13 (cf. ): Ὁµολογῶ … πεπρακέναι … τὰς ὑπαρχούσας µοι καὶ ἐλθούσα[ς εἰς ἐµὲ] ἀπὸ πατρῴας κληρονοµίας ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐπι[βάλ]λ̣ [ον]τ̣ό̣ς ̣ [µο]ι µέρους τοῦ πατρῴου [γεωργίου] … κατ’ ἀναλογίαν τῶν αὐτῶ̣ν̣ ἀρουρῶν ὀκτὼ κατ[ὰ] κ[οινω]ν̣ ί̣α̣ ν̣ [τῶν] ἐµῶν ἀδελφῶν καὶ τῶν κληρονόµων κτλ. Trans.: I agree … to sell the properties (belonging) to me … and which came to me by inheritance of my father from the portion that falls to me of my father’s [field?] … in proportion of eight of the said arouras, (which are owned) in common with my brothers and (joint-)heirs etc.

P.Laur. II 32 (TM: 37295) Fragmentary lease of a share of a house Provenance?

A.D. 500–550?

Connotation: co-ownership? ll. 2–11: Ὁµολογ[ῶ – ca. ? – ] … παντὸς δικαίου κατὰ κο[ινωνίαν –ca. ? – ] οἰκίας διακειµένης ἐπὶ τ̣ [ῆς – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: I agree [to lease the property…?] … (?) with every right (which is owned) in common (?) … (?) of the house situated … (?) etc.

498

Appendix

BGU XIX 2807 (TM: 91716) Land lease Hermopolis

A.D. 508?

Connotation: co-ownership? ll. 8–14: ὁµολογῶ [ἑκουσίως καὶ αὐθαιρέτως µεµισ]θῶσθαι παρὰ τῆ[ς σῆς ἀρετῆς ἐπὶ – ca. ? – ] … [τὸ] ἐπιβάλλον σοι µέ[ρος – ca. ? – κατὰ κοι]νωνείαν τοῦ σοῦ ἀ̣[δελφοῦ (?) – ca. ? – τοῦ] ὑπολοίπου µέρ[ους – ca. ? – εἰς συµπλήρωσιν τῶν – ca. ? – ] κτλ. Trans.: I agree to lease [voluntarily and of my own free will] from [you …?] the portion falling to you [(which is owned) in common?] with your [brother?] etc.

P.Stras. VI 598 (TM: 16810) Land lease Hermopolites

A.D. 541

Connotation: co-ownership? ll. 4–8: Ὁµολ[ογο]ῦµεν ἀ£ηλέÆ̣ υοι ὄντες [καὶ ἀ£ηλανάδοχοι ἑκουσίως καὶ] α̣ ὐ̣θ̣α̣ ιρέ[τως µ]εµισθ̣ ῶ̣σθαι παρὰ τῆς σῆς εὐγενείας … [τὸ ὕπαρχόν σοι µέρ]ος ἀ̣[ρουρῶν] δέκαεξ ἡ[µίσο]υ̣ ς τετάρτου σὺν αἱρο[ῦ]ν̣[τι µέρει – ca. 23 – κατὰ κοι]ν̣ ωνε̣ί̣α̣ [ν] τ̣ῶν σῶν ἀδελφῶν κτλ. Trans.: we agree, as mutual securities [and sureties, voluntarily] and of our own free will to lease from your nobility sixteen halves of a fourth [arouras of your property] with the seizure [of the portion? … (which is owned)] in common (?) with your brothers etc.

P.Cair.Masp. III 67314 (TM: 18441) Division of inheritance Antinoopolis

ca. A.D. 566

Connotation: sense unclear Frag. 3, ll. 34–39: ὅτι τὸ λῆµµα τῶν χωρίων εἰς ἡµ[ᾶς] κα[τὰ τὸν] προτεταγµένον µερισµὸν στέλλεται … καὶ πληρώσωµεν σαφῶς ἐπ̣ ὶ τ̣ῷ̣ [α]ὐ̣τ̣ [ῷ] προσ̣ [τ]ίµῳ, καὶ [πόρῳ] καὶ κινδύνῳ \τῆς/ ἑκάστου ἡµῶν περιο(υ)σίας, πραγµά[τω]ν̣ συνκο̣ [ινωνίας] κτλ. Trans.: for the gains of the estates shall be distributed to us according to the determined portion … and we shall certainly pay for the said fine, [liability], and risk, of each of our surplus (and) joint business [partnerships] (?) etc.

B.3: Κοινωνία in Papyri

499

P.Cair.Masp. III 67311 (TM: 18439) Deed of divorce Antinoopolis?

A.D. 569/570?

Connotation: marital union ll. 11–12: πρώην συνήφ̣ [θη]µ̣ εν̣ ἀ̣£ήλ[οις ἐπ]ὶ γάµο(υ) ν[ο]µ̣ ίµο(υ) καὶ κοινο(ῦ) βίο(υ) συνοικεσίο(υ) ἁρµονίαν τε κ̣ [αὶ κ]ο̣ ι ν̣ ̣[ων]ίαν κτλ. Trans.: we were joined together long ago in lawful matrimony and common life, living together in harmony and community etc.

SPP VIII 1040 (TM: 38013) Undetermined fragment Arsinoites

A.D. VI

Connotation: sense unclear (papyrus too fragmented) ll. 1–3: [ – ca. ? – ο]ς υἱὸς Μηνᾶ (καὶ) Ἄπα Ὂλ υἱὸς [cf. BL I, p. 417] Γερ(οντίου) ὑποδέκ(ται) Μαγαίδος (καὶ) Ἑρµ[ουπόλεως – ca. ? – παράσχ(ου) Φ]ιλοξένῳ [ἀπαιτ]ητ(ῇ) (ὑπὲρ) κοινω[νία]ς αὐτο\ῦ/ σίτο\υ/ [ἀρτάβας – ca. ? – ] Biblio.: Preisigke, WB 1:815.

P.Stras. V 490 (TM: 36659) Fragmentary land lease Hermopolis

A.D. VI?

Connotation: joint lease? ll. 3–6: … εἰς συµπλήρωσιν [τῶν ἄλλων ἀρουρῶν κατὰ κοιν]ωνίαν Ἰωάννου τοῦ πατραδ[έ]λφου … [Ἡ µίσ]θ̣ ωσις κυρία καὶ βε̣β̣ αία κτλ. Trans.: … as to [the other] remaining [arouras in] partnership (?) with Ioannes the son of (my) father's brother … The lease is effective and confirmed etc.

SB XIV 12132 (TM: 36265) (= SB VI 9295)

Fragmentary land lease Hermopolis

A.D. VI?

Connotation: joint lease? ll. 1–15:[ – ca. ? – κατὰ κοινω]ν̣ είαν τῶν σῶν ἀδελφῶν [ – ca. ? – ]α̣ ς τῶν ὑπολοίπων ἀρουρῶν [ – ca. ? – εἰς συµπλ]ή̣ρωσιν … ἡ µίσθωσις κυρία κτλ. Trans.: … in partnership (?) with your brothers … (?) of the remaining arouras … (?) . The lease is valid etc. Biblio.: Gerstinger, WS 69 (1956): 252–55; Maehler, ZPE 25 (1977): 188–91; Sijpesteijn, Talanta 6 (1975): 49–50.

Bibliography 1. Primary Sources 1.1 Literary Sources All Greek Scriptures are taken from K. Aland, B. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, and B. M. Metzger, eds., Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001). All Latin Scriptures are taken from the Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam (BibleWorks, vol. 8), unless otherwise indicated. Ambrosiaster. Commentarius in Epistulas Paulinas. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Part 3. Edited by H. I. Vogels. Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1969. Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians–Philemon. Translated and edited by G. L. Bray. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009. Apostolic Fathers. Edited by A. Roberts, and J. Donaldson. Buffalo: The Christian Literature, 1896. The Apostolic Fathers. Edited by J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1898. The Apostolic Fathers. Edited and translated by B. D. Ehrman. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. Aristotle. The Eudemian Ethics. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935. Aristotle. The Nichomachean Ethics. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934. [Aristotle]. Oeconomica. Translated by G. C. Armstrong. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947. Ashburner, Walter, ed. The Rhodian Sea-Law. Oxford: Clarendon, 1909. Augustine. Confessions. Translated by W. Watts. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970. Augustine. Opera Omnia. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Gallice, 1841. Ausonius. 2 vols. Translated by H. G. Evelyn-White. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. Birks, Peter, and Grant McLeod, eds. Justinian’s Institutes. London: Duckworth, 1987. Boll, F., ed. Codices Germanici. Vol. 7 of Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum. Brussels: Lamertin, 1908. Borgen, Peder, Kåre Fuglseth, and Roald Skarsten, eds. The Philo Concordance Database in Greek (PHI). BibleWorks, vol. 8, 2005. Burnet, John, ed. Platonis opera. 5 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907. Caesar, Julius. The Civil Wars. Translated by A. G. Peskett. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921.

502

Bibliography

Callimachus. Hymns and Epigrams. Translated by A. W. Mair. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921. Cato, Marchus Porcius. De agricultura. Translated by W. D. Hooper. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. Catullus, Gaius Valerius. Translated by F. W. Cornish. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. Chambry, Émile, ed. Aesopi fabulae. 2 vols. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1925–1926. Chrysostom, Dio. Orations. 5 vols. Translated by J. W. Cohoon and H. Lamar Crosby. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932–1985. Chrysostom, John, In epistulam ad Philippenses. Patrologiae Graeca 62:177–298. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Migne, 1862. Homilies on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. Translated by P. Allen. Writings from the Greco-Roman World 16. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. De Amicitia. Translated by W. Armistead. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929. –. De Officiis. Translated by W. Miller. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928. –. De oratore. Translated by E. W. Sutton. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960. –. Laelius, on friendship (Laelius de amicitia), and The dream of Scipio (Somnium Scipionis). Translated by J. G. F. Powell. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1990. –. Letters to Atticus. Translated by E. O. Winstedt. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. –. The Letters to his Brother Quintus. Translated by W. G. Williams. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. –. The Letters to his Friends. 4 vols. Translated by W. G. Williams. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965. –. Philippics. Translated by W. C. A. Ker. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969. –. Pro M. Fonteio. Translated by N. H. Watts. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931. –. Pro M. Marcello. Translated by N. H. Watts. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. –. Pro Publio Quinctio. Translated by J. H. Freese. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. –. Pro Q. Roscio Comoedo. Translated by J. H. Freese. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. –. The Verrine Orations. 2 vols. Translated by L. H. G. Greenwood. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. –. Topica. Edited by T. Reinhardt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. [Cicero, Marcus Tullius]. Ad C. Herennium de ratione dicendi (Rhetorica ad Herennium). Translated by H. Caplan. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. Cooper, John M., ed. Plato: Complete Works. Cambridge: Hackett, 1997. Cramer, J. A., ed. Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum. Vol. 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1842. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967. Cumont, F., ed. Codices Parisini. Vol. 8.1 of Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum. Brussels: Lamertin, 1929. Demosthène. Playdoyers Civils. 4 vols. Translated by L. Gernet. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1960.

Primary Sources

503

Demosthenes. Orations. 8 vols. Translated by J. H. Vince. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930–1949. Diggle, J., ed. Euripidis fabulae. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981. Diodorus of Sicily. Bibliotheca historica. 6 vols. Translated by C. H. Oldfather. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933–1967. Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Vol. 1. Translated by R. D. Hicks. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Roman Antiquities. Vol. 5. Translated by E. Cary. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962. Epictetus. Discourses. 2 vols. Translated by W. A. Oldfather. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925–1928. Gaius. The Institutes of Gaius. Translated by W. M. Gordon and O. F. Robison. London: Duckworth, 1988. Gibbs, Laura, ed. Aesop’s Fables. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Gregory of Nazianzus. Orationes theologicae. Patrologiae graeca 35. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Migne, 1857–1886. Hanhart, Robert, ed. Tobit. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Harris-McCoy, Daniel E., ed. Artemidorus’ Oneirocritica: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Hausrath, A., and H. Hunger, eds. Corpus fabularum Aesopicarum. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner, 1970. Heiberg, J. L., ed. Heronis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt omnia. Vol. 5. Leipzig: Teubner, 1914. Herodianus, Aelius. Grammatici Graeci. 3 vols. Edited by A. Lentz. Leipzig: Teubner, 1870. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1965. –. Partitiones. Edited by J. F. Boissonade. London: 1819. Repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1963. Herodotus. The Persian Wars. 4 vols. Translated by A. D. Godley. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920–1925. Hilberg, Isidor, ed. Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae. Part 1. Vienna: Tempsky, 1910– 1918. Repr., New York: Johnson, 1961. Holwerda, D., and H. J. Scheltema, eds. Basilicorum Libri LX. Series B. 9 vols. Groningen: Wolters, 1953–1985. Isaeus. Translated by E. S. Forster. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962. Isocrates. 3 vols. Translated by G. Norlin. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928–1945. Justinian. Codex justinianus. Vol. 2 of Corpus iuris civilis. Edited by P. Krüger. Berlin: Weidmann, 1892. –. Novellae. Vol. 3 of Corpus iuris civilis. Edited by R. Schöll. Berlin: Weidmann, 1895. Latte, K., ed. Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon. 2 vols. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1953– 1966. Littré, É., ed. Oeuvres complètes d’Hippocrate. Vol. 6. Paris: Baillière, 1849. Repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1962. Livy. History of Rome. Vol. 1. Translated by B. O. Foster. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. –. History of Rome. Vol. 13. Translated by A. C. Schlesinger. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951. Lucian. 8 vols. Translated by A. M. Harmon. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961.

504

Bibliography

Migne, J.-P., ed. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca. Paris: Migne, 1857–1866. Mommsen, Theodor, Paul Krueger, and Alan Watson, eds. The Digest of Justinian. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Nachstädt, W., ed. Plutarchi moralia. Vol. 2.1. Leipzig: Teubner, 1935. Neusner, Jacob, ed. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Nickau, K., ed. Ammonii qui dicitur liber de adfinium vocabulorum differentia. Leipzig: Teubner, 1996. Niese, Benedictus, ed. Flavii Josephi opera. 6 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1887. Pelagius. Pelagius’s Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul. II. Text and Apparatus Criticus. Edited by A. Souter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922. Perry, Ben E., ed. Aesopica: A Series of Texts relating to Aesop or ascribed to him or closely connected with the Literary Tradition that bears his Name. Vol. 1. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1952. Petronius. Satyricon. Translated by M. Heseltine. Revised by E. H. Warmington. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969. Philostratus, Flavius. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana. 2 vols. Translated by F. C. Conybeare. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960. Pingree, D., ed. Vettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum libri novem. Leipzig: Teubner, 1986. Plato. Gorgias. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925. –. Laws. 2 vols. Translated by R. G. Bury. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. Plautus, Titus Maccius. 5 vols. Translated by P. Nixon. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960–1966. Pliny. Letters. Translated by B. Radice. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969. Plutarch. Moralia. Vol. 3. Translated by F. C. Babbit. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. –. Moralia. Vol. 7. Translated by P. H. De Lacy and B. Einarson. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. –. Moralia. Vol. 10. Translated by H. N. Fowler. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960. –. Plutarch’s Lives. Vol. 8. Translated by B. Perrin. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969. Pohlenz, M., ed. Plutarchi moralia. Vol. 3. Leipzig: Teubner, 1929. Polybius. The Histories. Vol. 1. Translated by W. R. Paton. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954. –. The Histories. Vol. 6. Translated by W. R. Paton. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976. Quintilian. Institutio oratoria. Vol. 2. Translated by H. E. Butler. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966. Radermacher, L., and H. Usener, eds. Dionysii Halicarnasei quae exstant. Vol. 6. Leipzig: Teubner, 1929. Repr. Stuttgart, 1965. Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Translated by F. W. Shipley. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956. Scrivener, F. H. A., ed. An Exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis. London: Bell and Daldy, 1859.

Primary Sources

505

Seneca, Lucius Annaeus. Ad Lucilium epistulae morales. vol. 1. Translated by R. M. Gummere. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961. –. Moral Essays. 3 vols. Translated by J. W. Basore. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963. Suetonius. The Lives of the Caesars. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979. Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Interpretatio in xiv epistulas sancti Pauli. Patrologiae graeca 82. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Gallice, 1857–1866. Theophrastus. Characters. Translated by J. M. Edmonds. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. –. De causis plantarum. Edited by R. E. Dengler. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1927. –. Enquiry into Plants. 2 vols. Translated by A. Hort. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916. Thomas, J. A. C., ed. The Institutes of Justinian: Text, Translation and Commentary. Cape Town: Juta, 1975. Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. 4 vols. Translated by C. F. Smith. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919–1923. Tittmann, J. A. H., ed. Iohannis Zonarae lexicon ex tribus codicibus manuscriptis. 2 vols. Leipzig: Crusius, 1808. Repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1967. Valerius Maximus. Memorable Doings and Sayings. Translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000. Velius Longus. De orthographia. Vol. 7 of Grammatici Latini. Edited by H. Keil. Leipzig: Teubner, 1880. Victor, C. Iulius. Ars rhetorica. Edited by R. Giomini and M. S. Celentano. Leipzig: Teubner, 1980. Victorinus, Marius. Commentarii in epistulas Pauli ad Galatas, ad Philippenses, ad Ephesios. Edited by A. Locher. Leipzig: Teubner, 1972. Watson, Alan, ed. The Digest of Justinian. 4 vols. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Wellmann, M., ed. Pedanii Dioscuridis Anazarbei de materia medica libri quinque. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1907–1914. Xenophon. Anabasis. Vol. 3. Translated by C. L. Brownson. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. –. Cyropaedia. Vol. 1. Translated by W. Miller. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914. –. Hellenica. Vol. 2. Translated by C. L. Brownson. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. –. Scripta Minora. Translated by E. C. Marchant. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971. Ziegler, K., ed. Plutarchi Vitae Parallelae. Vol. 2.1. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Teubner, 1964. Zuretti, K. O., ed. Codices Hispanienses. Vol. 11.2 of Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum. Brussels: Lamertin, 1934.

1.2 Documentary Sources See below for works other than those already referenced in Oates et al., Checklist, and in Horsley and Lee, “Preliminary Checklist”.

506

Bibliography

Ameling, Walter, ed. Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis: Kleinasien. Vol. 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Arangio-Ruiz, Vincenzo, ed. Fontes iuris romani antejustiniani. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. Florence: S. A. G. Barbèra, 1969. Athena. Syngramma periodikon tes en Athenais Epistemonikes Hetaireias. Vol. 12. Athens: A. Perre, 1900. Baviera, Johannes. Fontes iuris romani antejustiniani. Vol. 2. Florence: S. A. G. Barbèra, 1968. Berges, Dietrich, and Johannes Nollé, eds. Tyana: Archäologisch-historische Untersuchungen zum südwestlichen Kappadokien. Part 1. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 2000. Bove, Lucio. Documenti di operazioni finanziarie dall’ archivio dei Sulpici: Tabulae Pompeianae di Murécine. Naples: Liguori, 1984. Bresson, Alain, ed. Recueil des inscriptions de la Pérée rhodienne. Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 105. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1991. Bruns, C. G., ed. Fontes iuris romani antiqui. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1909. Brunt, P. A., and J. M. Moore, eds. Res gestae divi Augusti: The Achievements of the Divine Augustus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967. Burnet, Régis, ed. L’Égypte ancienne à travers les papyrus: Vie quotidienne. Paris: Pygmalion, 2003. Cooley, Alison E., ed. Res gestae divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Dubois, Laurent, ed. Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont. Hautes études du monde gréco-romain 22. Genève: Droz, 1996. Gawlikowski, Michał. Monuments funéraires de Palmyre. Travaux du Centre d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences 9. Warsaw: Editions scientifiques de Pologne, 1970. Gounaropoulou, Loukretia, and Miltiades B. Hatzopoulos, eds. Epigraphes Kato Makedonias: Epigraphes Beroias. Athens: de Boccard, 1998. Hagel, Stefan, and Kurt Tomaschitz. Repertorium der westkilikischen Inschriften. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1998. Hellmann, Marie-Christine, ed. Choix d’inscriptions architecturales grecques. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, 1999. Herrmann, Peter, ed. Milet: Inschriften von Milet. Vol. 4. Part 2. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998. Herrmann, Peter, and Hasan Malay. New Documents from Lydia. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007. Hübner, Alfred, ed. Repertorium der griechischen Rechtsinschriften. Faszikel 1: Troas– Mysien. Munich: Leopold Wenger-Institut, 1993. Jonnes, Lloyd, ed. The Inscriptions of Heraclea Pontica. With a Prosopographia Heracleotica by Walter Ameling. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt, 1994. Kearsley, R. A, ed. Greeks and Romans in Imperial Asia: Mixed Language Inscriptions and Linguistic Evidence for Cultural Interaction until the End of AD III. Bonn: R. Habelt, 2001. Labarre, Guy. Les cités de Lesbos aux époques hellénistique et impériale. Vol. 1. Paris: de Boccard, 1996. Lefèvre, François, ed. Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes: Documents amphictioniques. Vol. 4. Paris: de Boccard, 2002. McCabe, Donald F, ed. Theangela Inscriptions: Texts and List. Packard Humanities Institute CD 6. Princeton: The Institute for Advanced Study, 1991.

Primary Sources

507

–. Kaunos Inscriptions: Texts and List. Packard Humanities Institute CD 7. Princeton: The Institute for Advanced Study, 1996. Merkelbach, Reinhold, and Josef Stauber, eds. Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten: Die Westküste Kleinasiens von Knidos bis Ilion. Vol. 1. Munich: K. G. Saur, 1998. –. Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten: Die Nordküste Kleinasiens (Marmarameer und Pontos). Vol. 2. Munich: K. G. Saur, 2001. Migliardi Zingale, Livia. Vita privata e vita pubblica nei papiri d’Egitto. Turin: G. Giappichelli, 1992. Milligan, George, ed. Selections from the Greek Papyri. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927. Mitchell, Stephen. “The Treaty between Rome and Lycia of 46 BC (MS 2070).” Pages 163–250 in Papyri Graecae Schøyen (PSchøyen I). Edited by Rosario Pintaudi. Florence: Gonnelli, 2005. Montevecchi, Orsolina, ed. I contratti di lavoro e di servizio nell’Egitto greco, romano e bizantino. Milan: Vita e pensiero, 1950. Mouterde, R., and A. Poidebard, eds. Le limes de Chalcis: Organisation de la steppe en haute Syrie romaine. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1945. Naldini, Mario. Il Cristianesimo in Egitto: Lettere private nei papiri dei secoli II–IV. 2nd ed. Fiesole: Nardini, 1998. Noy, David, ed. Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Pestman, P. W., ed. Textes et études de papyrologie grecque, démotique et copte (P. L. Bat. 23). Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985. Petsas, Photios M., Miltiades B. Hatzopoulos, Loukretia Gounaropoulou, and P. Paschidis, eds. Inscriptions du sanctuaire de la Mère des Dieux autochthone de Leukopétra (Macédoine). Meletēmata 28. Athens: Centre de Recherches de l'Antiquité Grècque et Romaine, 2000. Pilhofer, Peter, ed. Katalog der Inschriften von Philippi. Vol. 2. of Philippi. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Poethke, Günter, Sebastian Prignitz, and Veit Vaelske, eds. Das Aktenbuch des Aurelios Philammon: Prozessberichte, Annona militaris und Magie in BGU IV 1024–1027. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Reynolds, Joyce M., and J. B. Ward Perkins, eds. The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania. Rome, 1952. Riccobono, Salvator, ed. Fontes iuris romani antejustiniani. Vol. 1. Florence: S. A. G. Barbèra, 1968. Rigsby, Kent J. Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Rizakis, Athanasios D. Achaïe III: Les cités Achéennes. Athènes: de Boccard, 2008. Ross, Ludwig, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae ineditae. Naples: C. A. Rhall, 1834–1845. Scheid, John. Res gestae divi Augusti: Hauts faits du divin Auguste. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2007. Schubert, Paul, ed. Vivre en Égypte Gréco-romaine: Une sélection de papyrus. Vevey: Éditions de l’Aire, 2000. Segre, Mario, ed. Iscrizioni di Cos. Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 6. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1993. –. Iscrizioni di Cos. Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 6.2. Rome: Quasar, 2007.

508

Bibliography

Sijpesteijn, P. J., and Klass A. Worp, eds. A Transportation Archive from Fourth-Century Oxyrhynchus (P. Mich. XX). Durham: American Society of Papyrologists, 2011. Tabbernee, William. Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia: Epigraphic Sources Illustrating the History of Montanism. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997. Thür, Gerhard, and Hans Taeuber, eds. Prozessrechtliche Inschriften der griechischen Poleis Arkadien. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1994. Van Effenterre, Henri, and Françoise Ruzé, eds. Nomima: Recueil d’inscriptions politiques et juridiques de l’archaïsme grec. Rome: École française de Rome, 1995. Welles, C. Bradford. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1966. Willetts, Ronald F., ed. The Law Code of Gortyn. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1967. Wood, John T. Discoveries at Ephesus: Including the Site and Remains of the Great Temple of Diana. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1975. Woodhead, A. Geoffrey, ed. Inscriptions: The Decrees. The Athenian Agora 16. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1997.

2. Reference Works Adrados, F. R., ed. Diccionario griego-español. 7 vols. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1980–2002. Online: http://dge.cchs.csic.es/xdge/. Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–1993. Bauer, Walter. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1988. –. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Edited by Frederick W. Danker. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Beauchet, Ludovic. Histoire du droit privé de la république athénienne. 4 vols. Paris: Chevalier-Marescq, 1897. Beekes, Robert. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Berger, Adolf. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 43. Part 2. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1953. Blass, Friedrich W. Grammar of New Testament Greek. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. London: Macmillan, 1898. Repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2010. Blass, Friedrich W., and Albert Debrunner. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 15th rev. ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Boisacq, Émile. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1916. Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907. Buttmann, Alexander. A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. Andover: W. F. Draper, 1891. Cabrillac, Rémy. Dictionnaire du vocabulaire juridique. Paris: Litec, 2008. Cancik, H., and H. Schneider, eds. Brill’s New Pauly. Brill Online, 2012–2013. Online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly. Chantraine, Pierre. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: Histoire des mots. 4 vols. Paris: Klincksieck, 1968–1980.

Reference Works

509

Cremer, Hermann. Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek. 4th ed. Translated by W. Urwick. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895. Daris, Sergio. Spoglio lessicale papirologico. 3 vols. Milan: Istituto di Papirologia dell’ Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 1968. Ernout, A., and A. Meillet. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: Histoire des mots. 4th rev. ed. Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1959. Evans, Craig A. and Stanley E. Porter, eds. Dictionary of New Testament Background. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000. Fraser, P. M., and E. Matthews, eds. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. 5 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987–2010. Frede, Hermann J. Epistulae ad Philippenses et ad Colossenses. Vol. 24/2 of Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel. Edited by E. Beuron. Freiburg: Herder, 1971. Freedman, David Noel, ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Frisk, Hjalmar von. Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universität, 1973. Gignac, Francis T. A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. 2 vols. Milan: La Goliardica, 1976. Glare, P. G. W., ed. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Goetz, George. Thesaurus glossarum emendatarum. Vol. 7 of Corpus glossariorum latinorum. Edited by G. Loewe. Lipsia: B. G. Teubner, 1901. Goetz, George, and G. Gundermann, eds. Glossae latinograecae et graecolatinae. Vol. 2 of Corpus glossariorum latinorum. Edited by G. Loewe. Lipsia: B. G. Teubner, 1888. Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody, 1980. Hawthorne, Gerald F., and Ralph P. Martin, eds. Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993. Hornblower, Simon and Antony Spawforth, eds. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd and rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Horsley, G. H. R., ed. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. 5 vols. Macquarie University, Sydney: The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, 1981–1989. Howlett, David R., ed. Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources. 16 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975–2012. Kirchner, Iohannes. Prosopographia attica. 2 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1966. Kittel, Gerhard, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. Lampe, G. W. H., ed. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Latham, R. E., ed. Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources: Fascicule I, A–B. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. Lewis, Charlton T., and Charles Short, eds. A Latin Dictionary founded on Andrews’ Edition of Freund’s Latin Dictionary. Rev. and enl. ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1966. Lewis, Naphtali. Life in Egypt under Roman Rule. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983. Liddell, Henry G., and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon: With a Revised Supplement. 9th ed. Edited by H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Llewelyn, Stephen R., ed. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. 4 vols. Macquarie University, Sydney: The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, 1992–2002. Louw, Johannes E., and Eugene A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989.

510

Bibliography

Mason, Hugh J. Greek Terms for Roman institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis. Toronto: A. M. Hakkert, 1974. Mayser, Edwin. Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit, mit Einschluss der gleichzeitigen Ostraka und der in Agypten verfassten Inschriften. 2 vols. 9th ed. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1923. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975. Moulton, James H. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 1. Prolegomena. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908. Moulton, James H., and G. Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930. Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Niermeyer, Jan F. Mediae latinitatis lexicon minus. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976. The Oxford English Dictionary. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online: http:// www.oed.com. Preisigke, Friedrich. Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden mit Einschluss der griechischen Inschriften, Aufschriften, Ostraka, Mumienschilder, usw., aus Ägypten. 4 vols. Heidelberg: Universität Heidelberg, 1924. –. Namenbuch enthaltend alle griechischen, lateinischen, ägyptischen, hebräischen, arabischen und sonstigen semitischen und nichtsemitischen Menschennamen, soweit sie in griechischen Urkunden (Papyri, Ostraka, Inschriften, Mumienschildern usw.) Ägyptens sich vorfinden. Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1967. Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of Historical Research. 3rd ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919. Smith, William, ed. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. London: John Murray, 1882. Smyth, Herbert W. A Greek Grammar for Colleges. New York: American Book, 1920. Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. 3 vols. Translated and edited by J. D. Ernest. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. Temporini, Hildegard, and Wolfgang Haase, eds. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Part 2, Principat, 33.1. New York: De Gruyter, 1989. Traill, John S. Persons of Ancient Athens. Vol. 10. Toronto: Athenians, 2001. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Wissowa, G., et al., eds. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1894–1978.

3. Secondary Literature Abatino, Barbara, Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci, and Enrico Perotti. “Early Elements of the Corporate Form: Depersonalization of Business in Ancient Rome.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 31.2 (2011): 365–89. Abbadi, M. A. H. el. “P.Flor. 50: Reconsidered.” Pages 91–96 in Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Papyrologists, Oxford, 24–31 July 1974. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1975. Abbott, Frank F., and Allan C. Johnson. Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire. New York: Russell & Russell, 1968.

Secondary Literature

511

Adams, Edward, and David G. Horrell. Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church. London: John Knox, 2004. Adams, J. N. Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Aejmelaeus, Lars. “The Question of Salary in the Conflict between Paul and the ‘Super Apostles’ in Corinth.” Pages 342–76 in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity. Essays in Honour of Heikki Räisänen. Edited by I. Dunderberg, C. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni. Brill: Leiden, 2002. Ager, Sheila L. Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337–90 B.C. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Agrell, Göran. Work, Toil and Sustenance: An Examination of the View of Work in the New Testament, Taking into Consideration Views Found in Old Testament, Intertestamental, and Early Rabbinic Writings. Stockholm: Verbum, 1976. Aletti, Jean-Noël. Saint Paul, Épître aux Philippiens: Introduction, traduction et commentaire. Études bibliques 55. Paris: Gabalda, 2005. Alexander, Loveday. “Hellenistic Letter-Forms and the Structure of Philippians.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37 (1989): 87–101. Allen, Roland. Missionary Methods: St Paul’s or Ours. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962. Amelotti, Mario. “Notariat und Urkundenwesen zur Zeit des Prinzipats.” ANRW 13:386– 99. Part 2, Principat, 13. Edited by H. Temporini. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980. –. “Συγγραφή, χειρόγραφον – testatio, chirographum: Osservazioni in tema di tipologie documentali.” Pages 297–304 in Symposion 1988: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Siena-Pisa, 6.–8. Juni 1988). Edited by G. Nenci and G. Thür. Cologne: Böhlau, 1990. Andreades, Andreas M. A History of Greek Public Finance. Vol. 1. Translated by C. N. Brown. New York: Arno, 1979. Andreau, Jean. “Banque grecque et banque romaine dans le théâtre de Plaute et de Térence.” Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’École française de Rome 80 (1968): 461–526. –. Les affaires de Monsieur Jucundus. Rome: École Française de Rome, 1974. –. La vie financière dans le monde romain: Les métiers de manieurs d’argent (IVe siècle av. J.-C.–IIIe siècle ap. J.-C). Rome: École Française de Rome, 1987. –. “Pouvoirs publics et archives des banquiers professionnels.” Pages 1–18 in La mémoire perdue: A la recherche des archives oubliées, publiques et privées, de la Rome antique. Edited by S. Demougin. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1994. –. Banques et affaires dans le monde romain IVe siècle av. J.-C.–IIIe siècle ap. J.-C. Paris: Seuil, 2001. –. “Structure et fonction du livre de comptes de Kellis.” Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 148.1 (2004): 431–43. –. “Roman Law in relation to Banking and Business: A Few Cases.” Pages 201–14 in Ancient Economies, Modern Methodologies: Archaeology, Comparative History, Models and Institutions. Edited by P. F. Bang, M. Ikeguchi, and H. G. Ziche. Bari: Edipuglia, 2006. –. “Registers, Account-books, and Written Documents in the De Frumento.” Pages 81– 92 in Sicilia Nutrix Plebis Romanae: Rhetoric, Law and Taxation in Cicero’s Verrines. Edited by J. R. W. Prag. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement 97. London: University of London, 2007. –. L’économie du monde romain. Paris: Ellipses, 2010. Andreau, Jean, and Véronique Chankowski, eds. Vocabulaire et expression de l’économie dans le monde antique. Études 19. Paris: de Boccard, 2007.

512

Bibliography

Andreau, Jean, Jérôme France, and Sylvie Pittia, eds. Mentalités et choix économiques des Romains. Pessac: Ausonius, 2004. Angus, Samuel. “Modern Methods in New Testament Philology.” The Harvard Theological Review 2.4 (1909): 446–64. Aquinas, Thomas. Commentaria in omnes epistolas diui Pauli Apostoli. Paris: D. Moreau, 1636. –. Commentary on Saint Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians and the Letter to the Philippians. Translated by F. R. Larcher and M. Duffy. Albany: Magi Books, 1969. Arangio-Ruiz, Vincenzo. “‘Societas re contracta’ e ‘communio incidens’.” Pages 355–95 in Studi in onore di Salvatore Riccobono nel XL anno del suo insegnamento. Vol. 4. Edited by S. Riccobono. Palermo: G. Castiglia, 1936. –. La società in diritto romano. Naples: Jovene, 2006. Arzt-Grabner, Peter. “The ‘Epistolary Introductory Thanksgiving’ in the Papyri and in Paul.” Novum Testamentum 36.1 (1994): 29–46. –. Philemon. Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament. Vol. 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. –. “How to Deal with Onesimus? Paul’s Solution within the Frame of Ancient Legal and Documentary Sources.” Pages 113–42 in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Edited by D. F. Tolmie. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. –. “Paul’s Letter Thanksgiving.” Pages 129–58 in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. Edited by S. E. Porter and S. A. Adams. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Ascough, Richard S. Paul’s Macedonian Associations: The Social Context of Philippians and 1 Thessalonians. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. 161. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Asheri, David. “Leggi greche sul problema dei debiti.” Studi classici e orientali 18 (1969): 5–122. Aspan, Paul F. “Toward a New Reading of Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in Light of a Kuhnian Analysis of New Testament Criticism.” Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1990. Atkins, Margaret, and Robin Osborne, eds. Poverty in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Attridge, Harold W. “Review of Frederick Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: Third Edition.” Review of Biblical Literature (2002). Online: http://www.bookreviews.org. Aubert, Jean-Jacques. Business Managers in Ancient Rome: A Social and Economic Study of Institores, 200 B.C.–A.D. 250. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994. –, ed. Tâches publiques et entreprise privée dans le monde romain: Actes du Diplôme d’études Avancées, Universités de Neuchâtel et de Lausanne, 2000–2002. Genève: Droz, 2003. –. “De l’usage de l’écriture dans la gestion d’entreprise à l’époque romaine.” Pages 127– 47 in Mentalités et choix économiques des Romains. Edited by J. Andreau, J. France, S. Pittia. Pessac: Ausonius, 2004. Aubert, Jean-Jacques, and Boudewijn Sirks, eds. Speculum iuris: Roman Law as a Reflection of Social and Economic Life in Antiquity. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2002. Aune, David E. The New Testament in its Literary Environment. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988. Austin, Michel M. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation. 2nd and enl. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Secondary Literature

513

Azzarello, Giuseppina. “Vecchi e nuovi personaggi della famiglia degli Apioni nei documenti papiracei.” Pages 33–46 in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor, July 29–August 4, 2007. Edited by T. Gagos. Ann Arbor: Scholarly Publishing Office, University of Michigan Library, 2010. Badian, Ernst, ed. Ancient Society and Institutions: Studies presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th Birthday. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966. –. Publicans and Sinners: Private Enterprise in the Service of the Roman Republic. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1972. Bagnall, Roger S. “Army and Police in Roman Upper Egypt.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 14 (1977): 67–86. –. “P.NYU 15 and the Kephalaiotai of Karanis.” Studia Papyrologica 17.1 (1978): 49– 54. –. “Theadelphian Taxes in CPR VI 5.” Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie copte 24 (1982): 115–18. –. Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. –. Reading Papyri, Writing Ancient History. London: Routledge, 1995. –, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Bagnall, Roger S., and Peter Derow, eds. The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. Bagnall, Roger S., and Klass A. Worp. “P.Erl. 52 B Recto: A Reedition.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 28 (1978): 231–37. –. “A Loan of Money: P.Sorb.Inv. 2253.” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 29 (1983): 29–31. –. “The Fourth-Century Tax Roll in the Princeton Collection.” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 30 (1984): 53–82. Bahr, Gordon J. “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters.” Journal of Biblical Literature 87.1 (1968): 27–41. Bakirtzis, Charalambos, and Helmut Koester, eds. Philippi at the Time of Paul and after His Death. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2009. Baldanza, Giuseppe. “La portata theologica di ὀσµὴ εὐωδίας in Fil 4, 18.” Laurentianum 47 (2006): 161–85. Ball, Gerard. “The Epistle to the Philippians: A Reply.” The Expositor, 8th Series 8 (1914): 143–54. Balougdgitch, Raoul. Étude sur la complicité en droit pénal romain. Montpellier: L’abeille, 1920. Bang, Peter F. The Roman Bazaar: A Comparative Study of Trade and Markets in a Tributary Empire. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE). Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. –. “Poverty in Pauline Studies: A Response to Steven Friesen.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (2004): 363–66. –. “Money and Meetings: Group Formation among Diaspora Jews and Early Christians.” Pages 113–27 in Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien. Edited by A. Gutsfeld and D.-A. Koch. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Barnet, John. “Paul’s Reception of the Gift from Philippi.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 50.3 (2006): 225–53. Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

514

Bibliography

Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Black’s New Testament Commentary. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1957. Barth, Gerhard. Der Brief an die Philipper. Zürcher Bibelkommentare. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979. Barth, Karl. Erklärungen des Philipperbriefes. Munich: Kaiser, 1928. Baumert, Norbert. “Ist Philipper 4,10 richtig übersetzt?” Biblische Zeitschrift 13 (1969): 256–62. –. Koinonein und Metechein – Synonym? Eine umfassende semantische Untersuchung. Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelwerk GmbH, 2003. Bean, G. E. “Notes and Inscriptions from Pisidia: Part II.” Anatolian Studies 10 (1960): 43–82. Bean, G. E., and T. B. Mitford. “Sites Old and New in Rough Cilicia.” Anatolian Studies 12 (1962): 185–217. Beare, F. W. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959. Beaudouin, Mondry. “Convention entre deux villes de Phocide.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 5 (1881): 42–54. Becker, Jürgen, Hans Conzelmann, and Gerhard Friedrich. Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser, Philipper, Kolosser, Thessalonicher und Philemon. Vol. 8 of Das Neue Testament Deutsch: Neues Göttinger Bibelwerk. Edited by G. Friedrich. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Beinart, B. “Capital in Partnership.” Acta Juridica 124 (1961): 118–55. Bengel, John A. Gnomon of the New Testament. Vol. 4. Edited and rev. by A. R. Fausset. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1873. Bengtson, Hermann, ed. Die Verträge der griechisch-römischen Welt von 700 bis 338 v. Chr. Vol. 2 of Die Staatsverträge des Altertums. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1962. Benoit, Pierre. “Une reconnaissance de dette du IIe siècle en Palestine.” Pages 257–72 in Studi in Onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto Paribeni. Milan: Ceschina, 1957. Benveniste, Émile. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. 2 vols. Paris: Minuit, 1969. Béquignon, Yves. “Études Thessaliennes : VII. Inscriptions de Thessalie.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 59 (1935): 36–77. Berdowski, Piotr. “Roman Businesswomen. I: The Case of the Producers and Distributors of Garum in Pompeii.” Analecta Archaeologica Ressoviensia 3 (2008): 251–72. Berger Adolf. “Wohnungsmiete und Verwandtes in den gräko-ägyptischen Papyri.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 29 (1913): 321–415. Berger, Klaus. “Apostelbrief und apostolische Rede: Zum Formular frühchristlicher Briefe.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 65.3 (1974): 190–231. –.“Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament.” ANRW 25.2:1031–1432. Part 2, Principat, 25.2. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984. Bernhardt, Rainer. Polis und römische Herrschaft in der späten Republik (149–31 v. Chr.). Berlin: De Gruyter, 1985. Berry, Ken L. “The Function of Friendship Language in Philippians 4:10–20.” Pages 107–24 in Friendship, Flattery and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World. Edited by J. T. Fitzgerald. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996. Best, Ernest. Paul and his Converts. The Sprunt Lectures 1985. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1985.

Secondary Literature

515

Best, Thomas F., and Günther Gassmann, eds. On the Way to Fuller Koinonia: Official Report of the Fifth World Conference on Faith and Order. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1994. Betz, Hans Dieter. Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner ,Apologie’ 2 Korinther 10–13. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1972. –. “2 Cor 6:14–7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment?” Journal of Biblical Literature 92.1 (1973): 88–108. –. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. –. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Bèze, Théodore de. Iesu Christi D. N. Nouum testamentum, siue, Nouum fœdus. Genève: Henricus Stephanus, 1565. Bianchini, Mariagrazia. Studi sulla societas. Milan: Giuffrè, 1967. Bienert, Walther. Die Arbeit nach der Lehre der Bibel: Ein Beitrag zur evangelischen Sozialethik. Stuttgart: Evanglisches Verlagswerk, 1954. Bile, Monique. Le dialecte crétois ancien. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1988. Bingen, Jean. “Inscription d’Achaïe.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 78 (1954): 74–88. –. Le papyrus Revenue Laws: Tradition grecque et adaptation hellénistique. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1978. –. “Review of T. B. Mitford, The Nymphaeum of Kafizin.” Chronique d’Égypte 57 (1982): 170–73. –. Hellenistic Egypt: Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture. Edited by R. S. Bagnall. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007. Biscardi, Arnaldo. Diritto greco antico. Milan: Giuffrè, 1982. Bitner, Bradley J. “Constitution and Covenant: Paul’s Engagement with Roman Law in 1 Corinthians 1:1–4:6.” Ph.D. diss., Macquarie University, 2013. Black, David A. “The Discourse Structure of Philippians: A Study in Textlinguistics.” Novum Testamentum 37 (1995): 16–49. Blanton IV, Thomas R. “The Benefactor’s Account-book: The Rhetoric of Gift Reciprocation According to Seneca and Paul.” New Testament Studies 59.3 (2013): 396– 414. Bläser, Peter. “Eucharistie und Einheit der Kirche in der Verkündigung des Neuen Testaments.” Theologie und Glaube 50 (1960): 419–32. Blomqvist, Jerker. Greek Particles in Hellenistic Prose. Lund: Gleerup, 1969. Bloomquist, L. Gregory. The Function of Suffering in Philippians. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 78. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Boak, A. E. R. “An Overseer’s Day-Book from the Fayoum.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 41.2 (1921): 217–21. –. “An Egyptian Farmer of the Age of Diocletian and Constantine.” Byzantina-metabyzantina 1 (1946): 39–53. Bockmuehl, Markus A. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. 4th ed. London: Black, 1997. Bodel, John, ed. Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient History from Inscriptions. London: Routledge, 2001. Boethius, C. A. “Excavations at Mycenae: XI. Hellenistic Mycenae.” The Annual of the British School at Athens 25 (1921–1923): 408–28.

516

Bibliography

Bogaert, Raymond. “Banquiers, courtiers et prêts maritimes à Athènes et à Alexandrie.” Chronique d’Égypte 40 (1965): 140–56. –. Banques et banquiers dans les cités grecques. Leyde: A.W. Sijthoff, 1968. –. Trapezitica Aegyptiaca: Recueil de recherches sur la banque en Égypte gréco-romaine. Florence: Gonnelli, 1994. Bojorge, H. “Koinonía – Comunicación en el Nuevo Testamento.” Revista bíblica 37 (1975): 33–47. Bonnard, Pierre. L’épître de Saint Paul aux Philippiens. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1950. Bordes, Jacqueline. Politeia dans la pensée grecque jusqu’à Aristote. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1982. Bori, Pier Cesare. ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ : L’idea della comunione nell’ ecclesiologia recente e nel Nuovo Testmento. Brescia: Paideia, 1972. Bormann, Lukas. Philippi: Stadt und Christengemeinde zur Zeit des Paulus. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 78. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995. Bornkamm, G. “Der Philipperbrief als paulinische Briefsammlung.” Pages 192–202 in Neotestamentica et Patristica. Edited by O. Cullmann. Novum Testamentum Supplements 6. Leiden: Brill, 1962. Bortolucci, I. “Index verborum graecorum quae in Institutionibus et Digestis occurrunt.” Archivio giuridico “Filippo Serafini” 76 (1906): 353–96. Bosworth, A. B. Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Bousquet, Jean. “Inscriptions de Delphes.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 82 (1958): 61–91. –. “Inscriptions de Delphes.”Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 88 (1964): 380–94. –. “Le cippe des Labyades.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 90.1 (1966): 82–92. Bowers, P. “Studies in Paul’s Understanding of his Mission.” Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1976. Bowman, Alan K. “Roman Military Records from Vindolanda.” Britannia 5 (1974): 360– 73. –. “Landholding in the Hermopolite Nome in the Fourth Century A.D.” The Journal of Roman Studies 75 (1985): 137–63. Bowman, Alan K., Edward Champlin, and Andrew Lintott, eds. The Augustan Empire, 43 BC–AD 69. Vol. 10 of The Cambridge Ancient History. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Bowman, Alan K., and Dominic Rathbone. “Cities and Administration in Roman Egypt.” The Journal of Roman Studies 82 (1992): 107–27. Bultmann, Rudolf. The Second Letter to the Corinthians. Translated by R. A. Harrisville. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985. Brants, Victor. “Les sociétés commerciales à Athènes: Contribution à l’histoire du capital dans la Grèce antique.” Revue de l’instruction publique en Belgique 25 (1882): 109– 25. Bravo, Benedetto. “Une tablette magique d’Olbia pontique: Les morts, les héros et les démons.” Pages 185–218 in Poikilia: Études offertes à Jean-Pierre Vernant. Recherches d’histoire et de sciences sociales, vol. 26. Paris: École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 1987. Brélaz, Cédric, and Athanasios Rizakis. “Le fonctionnement des institutions et le déroulement des carrières dans la colonie de Philippes.” Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 14 (2003): 155–65.

Secondary Literature

517

Breytenbach, Cilliers. “Probable Reasons for Paul’s Unfruitful Missionary Attempts in Asia Minor (A Note on Acts 16:6–7).” Pages 157–69 in Die Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung. Edited by E. Plümacher, C. Breytenbach, and J. Schröter. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Briones, David E. “Paul’s Financial Policy: A Socio-Theological Approach.” Ph.D. diss., Durham University, 2011. –. “Paul’s Intentional ‘Thankless Thanks’ in Philippians 4.10–20.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (2011): 47–69. –. Paul’s Financial Policy: A Socio-Theological Approach. Library of New Testament Studies 494. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013. Broekaert, Wim. “Joining Forces: Commercial Partnerships or societates in the Early Roman Empire.” Historia 61.2 (2012): 221–53. Broughton, T. R. S. “Roman Landholding in Asia Minor.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 65 (1934): 207–39. Brown, S. “Koinonia as the Basis of New Testament Ecclesiology?” One in Christ 12 (1976): 157–67. Browning, Robert. Medieval and Modern Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Bruce, F. F. Paul, Apostle of the Free Spirit. Exeter: Paternoster, 1977. –. “St. Paul in Macedonia: 3. The Philippian Correspondence.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 63 (1981): 260–84. –. Philippians. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989. Brunt, P. A. “Sulla and the Asian Publicans.” Latomus 15 (1956): 17–25. –. Roman Imperial Themes. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Buchanan, Colin O. “Epaphroditus’ Sickness and the Letter to the Philippians.” Evangelical Quarterly 36 (1964): 157–66. Buck, Carl D. The Greek Dialects. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1928. Buckland, W. W. Roman Law of Slavery: The Condition of the Slave in Private Law from Augustus to Justinian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1908. –. A Text-Book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian. 3rd ed., rev. by P. Stein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Buckler, W. H. “Documents from Mylasa.” The Annual of the British School at Athens 22 (1916/1917–1917/1918): 190–215. –. “Lydian Records.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 37 (1917): 88–115. Buraselis, Kostas. ΘΕΙΑ ∆ΩΡΕΑ: Das göttlich-kaiserliche Geschenk: Studien zur Politik der Severer und zur Constitutio Antoniniana. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007. Burford, Alison. Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972. Burkhalter, Fabienne. “Archives locales et archives centrales en Égypte Romaine.” Chiron 20 (1990): 191–216. Burton, G. P. “Proconsuls, Assizes and the Administration of Justice under the Empire.” The Journal of Roman Studies 65 (1975): 92–106. Buschmann, Gerd. “Χριστοῦ κοινωνός (MartPol 6, 2), das Martyrium und der ungeklärte κοινωνός-Titel der Montanisten.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 86 (1995): 243–64. Cabanes, Pierre. “Recherches épigraphiques en Albanie: Péripolarques et periploi en Grèce du Nord-Ouest et en Illyrie à la période hellénistique.” Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 135.1 (1991): 197–221.

518

Bibliography

–. “Public et privé dans le cadre de l’ethnos en Grèce Ancienne.” Ktema 23 (1998): 441– 49. Caird, G. B. “Articles towards a Lexicon of the Septuagint.” Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1968): 453–75. –. Paul’s Letters from Prison (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon) in the Revised Standard Version. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976. Cairns, J. W., and P. J. du Plessis, eds. Beyond Dogmatics: Law and Society in the Roman World. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007. Calder, W. M. “Inscriptions d’Iconium.” Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes 36.1 (1912): 48–77. –. “Unverified Documents from Konia.” Klio 24 (1931): 100–101. –. “Inscriptions of Southern Galatia.” American Journal of Archaeology 36.4 (1932): 452–64. –. “Early-Christian Epitaphs from Phrygia.” Anatolian Studies 5 (1955): 25–38. Calder, W. M., and Henri Grégoire. “Paulinus, Κοινωνός de Sébaste de Phrygie.” Bulletin de la classe des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques 38 (1952): 163–83. Calvin, Jean. Épîtres aux Galates, Ephésiens, Philippiens et Colossiens. Aix-en-Provence: Kerygma, 1978. Campbell, J. Y. “ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ and Its Cognates in the New Testament.” Journal of Biblical Literature 51.4 (1932): 352–80. Capper, Brian J. “Paul’s Dispute with Philippi: Understanding Paul’s Argument in Phil 1–2 from his Thanks in 4.10–20.” Theologische Zeitschrift 49 (1993): 193–214. Caragounis, Chrys C. “ΟΨΩΝΙΟΝ: A Reconsideration of its Meaning.” Novum Testamentum 16.1 (1974): 35–57. –. The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. –. “The Development of Greek and the New Testament: A Response to Dr. M. Silva.” Westminster Theological Journal 67 (2005): 405–15. Carr, Arthur. “The Fellowship (Κοινωνία) of Acts 2:42.” Expositor 5 (1913): 458–64. Cassidy, Richard J. Paul in Chains: Roman Imprisonment and the Letters of St. Paul. New York: Crossroad, 2001. Catling, H. W. “Archaeology in Greece, 1987–88.” Archaeological Reports 34 (1987– 1988): 3–85. Cavallin, Anders. “(τὸ) λοιπόν: Eine bedeutungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung.” Eranos 39 (1941): 121–44. Chadwick, John. “The Case for Replacing Liddell and Scott.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London 39 (1994): 1–11. Chaniotis, Angelos. “Problems of ‘Pastoralism’ and ‘Transhumance’ in Classical and Hellenistic Crete.” Orbis Terrarum 1 (1995): 39–89. Chantraine, Pierre. “Conjugaison et histoire des verbes signifiant ‘vendre’.” Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes 14 (1940): 11–24. Chaviaras, D. Mouseion kai Bibliotheke tes Evanggelikes Scholes. Smyrne: N. A. Damianou, 1878. Cimma, Maria R. Ricerche sulle società di publicani. Milan: Giuffrè, 1981. Cipriani, di Settimio. “La chiesa come ‘comunione’ nel Nuovo Testamento.” Presenza Pastorale (1971): 163–79. Clemen, Carl. Die Einheitlichkeit der Paulinischen Briefe an der Hand der bisher mit Bezug auf sie aufgestellten Interpolations- und Compilationshypothesen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1894.

Secondary Literature

519

Cohen, Edward E. Ancient Athenian Maritime Courts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973. –. Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking Perspective. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. –. “Consensual Contracts at Athens.” Pages 73–91 in Symposion 2003: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Rauischholzhausen, 30. September–3. Oktober 2003). Edited by H.-A. Rupprecht. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2006. Coles, Revel A. “Four Papyri from the British Museum.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 52 (1966): 129–37. –. “Some Corrections to PSI III 202.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 39 (1980): 124–25. Colin, G. “Inscriptions de Delphes : Décrets amphictioniques en l’honneur des artistes dionysiaques d’Athènes.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 24 (1900): 82–123. Collange, Jean-François. The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians. Translated by A. W. Heathcote. London: Epworth, 1979. Collart, Paul. “ΠΑΡΑΚΑΥΣΟΥΣΙΝ ΜΟΙ ΡΟ∆ΟΙΣ.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 55 (1931): 58–69. –. Philippes: Ville de Macédoine depuis ses origines jusqu’à la fin de l’époque Romaine. Paris: de Boccard, 1937. Collins, Raymond F. The Power of Images in Paul. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2008. Cook, David. “Stephanus Le Moyne and the Dissection of Philippians.” Journal of Theological Studies 31 (1981): 138–42. Coppens, J. “La koinônia dans l’Église primitive.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 46 (1970): 116–21. Cothenet, Edouard. “La Communio nel Nuovo Testamento.” Communio 1 (1972): 13–21. Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989. Cottier, M., et al., eds. The Customs Law of Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Cotton, Hannah. “The Guardianship of Jesus Son of Babatha: Roman and Local Law in the Province of Arabia.” The Journal of Roman Studies 83 (1993): 94–108. –. “‘Diplomatics’ or External Aspects of the Legal Documents from the Judaean Desert: Prolegomena.” Pages 49–61 in Rabbinic Law in its Roman and Near Eastern Context. Edited by C. Hezser. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Cousar, Charles B. Reading Galatians, Philippians and I Thessalonians: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2001. Craddock, Fred B. Philippians. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985. Crawford, M. “The Laws of the Romans: Knowledge and Diffusion.” Pages 127–40 in Estudios sobre la Tabula Siarensis. Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueologia 9. Edited by J. González and J. Arce. Madrid: C.S.I.C., 1988. Crook, John A. Law and Life of Rome, 90 B.C.–A.D. 212: Aspects of Greek and Roman Life. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967. –. “Working Notes on Some of the New Pompeii Tablets.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 29 (1978): 229–39. –. “Legal History and General History.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London 41 (1996): 31–36. Culpepper, R. Alan. “Co-Workers in Suffering: Philippians 2:19–30.” Review and Expositor 77 (1980): 349–58. Cuomo, Serafina. Technology and Culture in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

520

Bibliography

Currie, Stuart D. “Koinonia in Christian Literature to 200 A.D.” Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1962. Dahl, Nils A. Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977. Daillé, Jean. Exposition de Jean Daillé sur la divine épitre de l’apotre S. Paul aux Filippiens, en vingt-neuf sermons, prononcés à Charenton, dans les saintes assemblées de l’Église Réformée de Paris, 1’an 1639, 1640, 1641, 1642. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Genève, 1659–1660. Dalton, William J. “The Integrity of Philippians.” Biblica 60 (1979): 97–102. Danker, Frederick W. Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field. St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1982. Dareste, R. “Une Loi Ephésienne.” Revue historique de droit français et étranger 1 (1877): 161–78. D’Arms, John H. Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981. Datiri, Dachollom C. “Finances in the Pauline Churches: A Socio-Exegetical Study of the Funding of Paul’s Mission and the Financial Administration of his Congregation.” Ph.D. diss., University of Sheffield, 1996. Daube, David. “Societas as Consensual Contract.” The Cambridge Law Journal 6.3 (1938): 381–403. –. “The Peregrine Praetor.” The Journal of Roman Studies 41 (1951): 366–70. Daux, Georges. “Inscriptions de Delphes.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 46 (1922): 439–66. –. “Notes épigraphiques.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 59 (1935): 92–100. –. “Inscriptions de Delphes.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 68/69 (1944): 94– 128. –. “Trois inscriptions de la Grèce du Nord.” Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 116.3 (1972): 478–493. Davis, Casey W. Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of the Principles of Orality on the Literary Structure of Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Davies, J. G. Members One of Another: Aspects of Koinonia. London: A. R. Mowbray, 1958. Del Chiaro, Émile. Le contrat de société en droit romain. Paris: Sirey, 1928. Deissmann, Gustav A. “Hellenistic Greek with Special Consideration of the Greek Bible.” Pages 39–59 in The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. Edited by S. E. Porter. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Repr. from Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche 7 (1899): 627–39. –. Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity. Translated by A. Grieve. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901. –. “The New Testament: In the Light of Recently Discovered Texts of the Græco-Roman World.” The Expository Times 18 (1906): 8–15. –. “The New Testament: In the Light of Recently Discovered Texts of the Græco-Roman World.” The Expository Times 18 (1907): 305–310. –. The Philology of the Greek Bible: Its Present and Future. Translated by L. R. M. Strachan. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908. –. Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. Translated by W. E. Wilson. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957.

Secondary Literature

521

–. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. 4th rev. ed. Translated by L. R. M. Strachan. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1927. Deniaux, Élisabeth. “Atticus et l’Épire.” Pages 245–54 in L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Epire dans l’antiquité: Actes du colloque international de Clermont-Ferrand, 22–25 octobre 1984. Edited by P. Cabanes. Clermont-Ferrand: Adosa, 1987. Deschamps, Gaston, and Georges Cousin. “Inscription de Magnésie du Méandre.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 12 (1888): 204–23. Dewailly, L.-M. “Communio-Communicatio: Brèves notes sur l’histoire d’un sémantème.” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 54 (1970): 46–63. –. “La part prise à l’Évangile (Phil. 1, 5).” Revue Biblique 80 (1973): 247–60. Dickson, John P. Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities: The Shape, Extent and Background of Early Christian Mission. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2003. Dibelius, Martin. An die Philipper. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 11. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1937. –. Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. London: SCM, 1956. –. A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature. Westport: Greenwood, 1979. Diest, W. von, and M. Anton. Neue Forschungen im nordwestlichen Kleinasien. Petermanns geographische Mitteilungen Ergänzungsheft 116. Gotha: Justus Perthes, 1895. Di Marco, Angelico. “Koinonia–Communio: Flp 2,1.” Laurentianum 3 (1980): 376–403. Dittmann-Schöne, Imogen. Die Berufsvereine in den Städten des kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasiens. Regensburg: S. Roderer, 2001. Di Vita, Antonino, Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, Ginette Di Vitta Evrard, Lorenzo Lazzarini, and Bruno Turi. “Il Serapeo di Leptis Magna: Il tempio, le iscrizioni, i marmi.” Quaderni di archeologia della Libia 18 (2003): 267–92. Dodd, C. H. “Pauline Illustrations from Recently Published Papyri.” The Expositor, 8th Series 15 (1918): 291–96. –. New Testament Studies. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967. Doering, Lutz. Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Donceel-Voûte, Pauline. Les pavements des églises byzantines de Syrie et du Liban: Décor, archéologie et liturgie. Louvain-la-Neuve: Département d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie Collège Erasme, 1988. Donfried, Karl Paul. Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Donlan, Walter. “Reciprocities in Homer.” Classical World 75.3 (1982): 137–75. Doublet, Georges, and Gaston Deschamps. “Inscriptions de Carie.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 14 (1890): 603–630. Doty, William G. “The Classification of Epistolary Literature.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31 (1969): 183–99. –. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973. Downing, F. Gerald. “A Bas Les Aristos: The Relevance of Higher Literature for the Understanding of the Earliest Christian Writings.” Novum Testamentum 30.3 (1988): 212–30. Downs, David J. “Paul’s Collection and the Book of Acts Revisited.” New Testament Studies 52 (2006): 50–70.

522

Bibliography

–. The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.248. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Dragoumis, Etienne. “Coup d’œil sur les règlements de la phratrie des Labyadai.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 19 (1895): 295–302. Dressel, H. “Richerche sul Monte Testaccio.” Annali dell’ Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica (1878): 118–92. Drew-Bear, Marie. “La paraphylaké des villages dans les baux fonciers Byzantins du nome Hermopolite.” Pages 189–96 in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 2007. Edited by T. Gagos. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Library, 2010. Drew-Bear, Thomas. “Some Greek Words: Part I and II.” Glotta 50 (1972): 61–96, 182– 228. Drinkwater, J. F. “Money-Rents and Food-Renders in Gallic Funerary Reliefs.” Pages 215–33 in The Roman West in the Third Century: Contributions from Archaeology and History. Part 1. Edited by A. King and M. Henig. Oxford: B. A. R., 1981. Droge, Arthur J. “Mori Lucrum: Paul and Ancient Theories of Suicide.” Novum Testamentum 30.3 (1988): 263–86. Dubuisson, Michel. “La vie quotidienne à Rome: Considérations intempestives.” Pomoerium 4 (2000–2002): 89–99. Dunant, Christiane. “Inscriptions à Delphes.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 76 (1952): 625–50. Dungan, David L. The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul: The Use of the Synoptic Tradition in the Regulation of Early Church Life. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Dunn, James D. G. “‘Instruments of Koinonia’ in the Early Church.” One in Christ 25 (1989): 204–16. Dupont, Florence. La vie quotidienne du citoyen romain sous la République. Paris: Hachette, 1989. Dupont, Jacques. “La communauté des biens aux premiers jours de l’église (Actes 2, 42.44–45; 4, 32.34–35).” Pages 503–19 in Études sur les actes des apôtres. Paris: Cerfs, 1967. –. “L’union entre les premiers chrétiens dans les actes des apôtres.” Pages 297–318 in Nouvelles études sur les actes des apôtres. Paris: Cerfs, 1984. Dürrbach, Félix, and Georges A. Radet. “Inscriptions de la Pérée rhodienne.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 10 (1886): 245–69. Eadie, John. A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Philippians. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1884. Ebner, Martin. Leidenslisten und Apostelbrief: Untersuchungen zu Form, Motivik und Funktion der Peristasenkataloge bei Paulus. Würzburg: Echter, 1991. Eck, Werner. The Age of Augustus. Translated by D. L. Schneider. Malden: Blackwell, 2003. Edart, Jean–Baptiste. L’épître aux Philippiens: Rhétorique et composition stylistique. Paris: J. Gabalda, 2002. Egea, I. M. Documenta selecta ad historiam linguae graecae inlustrandam. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco, 1988. Eilers, Claude. Roman Patrons of Greek Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Elert, Werner, ed. Koinonia: Arbeiten des Okumenischen Ausschusses der Vereinigten Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands zur Frage der Kirchen- und Abendmahlsgemeinschaft. Berlin: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1957.

Secondary Literature

523

Ellicott, C. J. A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon. London: J. W. Parker, 1861. Ellis, E. Earle. “Paul and his Co-workers.” New Testament Studies 17 (1970): 437–52. Endenburg, Pieter J. T. Koinoonia en gemeenschap van zaken bij de Grieken in den klassieken tijd. Amsterdam: H. J. Paris, 1937. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. Paul and the Stoics. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000. Engelmann, Helmut, and Dieter Knibbe. “Das Monumentum Ephesenum: Ein Vorbericht.” Epigraphica Anatolica 8 (1986): 19–32. –. “Das Zollgesetz der Provinz Asia: Eine neue Inschrift aus Ephesos.” Epigraphica Anatolica 14 (1989): 1–206. Erasmus, Desiderius. Des. Erasmi Roterodami in Nouum Testamentum ab eodem denuo recognitum, annotationes. Basel: Ioannes Frobenius, 1519. Erman, Heinrich. “Die ‘Habe’-Quittung bei den Griechen.” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 1 (1901): 77–84. Ernst, Josef. Die Briefe an die Philipper, an Philemon, an die Kolosser, an die Epheser. Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1974. Étienne, Roland. Ténos II: Ténos et les Cyclades du milieu du IVe siècle av. J.C. au milieu du IIIe siècle ap. J.C. Athènes: École française d’Athènes, 1990. Evangelidis, D. “Lesbou Epigraphai.” Archaiologikon Deltion 4 (1920): 99–114. Evans, Craig A. Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005. Evans, T. V., and D. D. Obbink, eds. The Language of the Papyri. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Ewald, Paul. Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper. 3rd rev. and enl. ed. Leipzig: Deichert, 1917. Exler, Francis X. J. The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter: A Study in Greek Epistolography. Washington: Catholic University of America, 1923. Fee, Gordon D. Paul’s Letters to the Philippians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Ferguson, William S. “Orgeonika.” Hesperia Supplements 8 (1949): 130–163. Ferguson, William S., and Arthur D. Nock. “The Attic Orgeones and the Cult of Heroes.” The Harvard Theological Review 37.2 (1944): 61–174. Fernández, Ángel Martínez, ed. Estudios de Epigrafía Griega. La Laguna: Universidad de la Laguna, 2009. Ferrary, Jean-Louis. “Le statut des cités libres dans l’Empire romain à la lumière des inscriptions de Claros.” Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 135.3 (1991): 557–77. Finley, Moses I. The Ancient Economy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. –. Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens, 500–200 B.C.: The Horos-Inscriptions. New York: Arno, 1973. Fisher, Gerd-Dieter. “Zum Koinonia-Charakter christlicher Gemeinde.” Theologie und Glaube 61 (1971): 39–44. Fitzgerald, John T. Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. –. “Philippians, Epistle to the.” Pages 318–26 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 5. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. –., ed. Friendship, Flattery and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996.

524

Bibliography

–. Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship. Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. –. “Christian Friendship: John, Paul, and the Philippians.” Interpretation 61 (2007): 284– 96. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Qumrân and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Cor 6,14–7,1.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 23 (1961): 271–80. –. “The Language of Palestine in the First Century AD.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32 (1970): 501–31. Flanagan, Neal. “A Note on Philippians 3:20–21.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 18 (1956): 8–9. Fleury, Jean. “Une société de fait dans l’église apostolique (Phil. 4:10 à 22).” Pages 41– 59 in Mélanges Philippe Meylan. Vol. 2. Lausanne: Université de Lausanne, 1963. Flohr, Miko. The World of the Fullo: Work, Economy, and Society in Roman Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. –. “Review of E. Mayer, The Ancient Middle Classes: Urban Life and Aesthetics in the Roman Empire 100 BCE–250 CE.” The Journal of Roman Studies 103 (2013): 308– 309. Follet, Simone. “Lettre de Marc-Aurèle aux Athéniens (EM 13366): Nouvelles lectures et interprétations.” Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire ancienne 105 (1979): 29–43. –. “Lettres d’Hadrien aux épicuriens d’Athènes (14.2–14.3.125): SEG III 226 + IG II2 1097.” Revue des études grecques 107 (1994): 158–71. Fontrier, Aristote M. “Inscription de Léros.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 19 (1895): 550–52. Forbes, Christopher. “Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric.” New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 1–30. –. “Ancient Rhetoric and Ancient Letters: Models for Reading Paul, and Their Limits.” Pages 143–60 in Paul and Rhetoric. Edited by J. P. Sampley and P. Lampe. London: T. & T. Clark, 2010. Ford, Harold W. “The New Testament Conception of Fellowship.” Shane Quarterly 6 (1945): 188–215. Fornara, Charles W. Archaic Times to the End of the Peloponnesian War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Forsdyke, Sara. Slaves Tell Tales: And Other Episodes in the Politics of Popular Culture in Ancient Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Fortna, Robert T. “Philippians: Paul’s Most Egocentric Letter.” Pages 220–34 in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn. Edited by R. T. Fortna and B. R. Gaventa. Nashville: Abingdon, 1990. Foster, Tony. Dutch Legal Terminology in English. Rev. and enl. ed. Deventer: Kluwer, 2009. Foucart, “Rapport sur un sénatus-consulte inédit de l’année 170 relatif à la ville de Thisbé.” Archives des missions scientifiques et littéraires 7 (1872): 322–79. –. M. P. Des associations religieuses chez les Grecs: Thiases, Éranes, Orgéons. Paris: Klincksieck, 1873. –. “Sénatus-consulte de Thisbé (170).” Mémoires de l’Institut de France, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 37.2 (1906): 305–46. Fournet, Jean-Luc. “Les tribulations d’un pétitionnaire Égyptien à Constantinople: Révision de P.Cair.Masp. III 67352.” Pages 243–50 in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 2007. Edited by T. Gagos. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Library, 2010.

Secondary Literature

525

Fowl, Stephen E. “Know Your Context: Giving and Receiving Money in Philippians.” Interpretation 56.1 (2002): 45–58. –. Philippians. The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Francotte, Henri. L’industrie dans la Grèce ancienne. Vol. 2. Bruxelles: Société Belge de Librairie, 1901. Fränkel, Ernst. “Zur griechischen Wortforschung.” Glotta 35.1 (1956): 77–92. Fraser, P. M. “Inscriptions from Commagene.” The Annual of the British School at Athens 47 (1952): 96–101. –. Rhodian Funerary Monuments. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977. Fraser, P. M., and S. Applebaum. “Hadrian and Cyrene.” The Journal of Roman Studies 40 (1950): 77–90. Frend, W. H. C. The Early Church. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1965. –. “Montanism: A Movement of Prophecy and Regional Identity in the Early Church.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 70 (1988): 25–34. Friesen, Steven J. “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-called New Consensus.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26.3 (2004): 323–61. –. “Injustice or God’s Will? Explanations of Poverty in Four Proto-Christian Texts.” Pages 240–60 in Christian Origins. Edited by R. A. Horsley. Vol. 1 of A People’s History of Christianity. Edited by D. R. Janz. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. –. “The Blessings of Hegemony: Poverty, Paul’s Assemblies, and the Class Interests of the Professoriate.” Pages 117–28 in The Bible in the Public Square: Reading the Signs of the Times. Edited by C. B. Kittredge, E. B. Aitken, J. A. Draper. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008. Funk, Robert W. “The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance.” Pages 249–68 in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox. Edited by W. R. Farmer et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Furnish, Paul V. “The Place and Purpose of Philippians III.” New Testament Studies 10 (1963): 80–88. –. II Corinthians. The Anchor Bible 32A. New York: Doubleday, 1984. Gagarin, Michael, and David Cohen, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Gager, John G. Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1975. –. “Review of R. M. Grant, A. J. Malherbe, G. Theissen.” Religious Studies Review 5.3 (1979): 174–80. –. “Shall we marry our enemies? Sociology and the NT.” Interpretation 36 (1986): 256– 65. Gagos, T. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 2007. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Library, 2010. Gallant, Thomas W. Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece: Reconstructing the Rural Domestic Economy. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991. Garland, David E. “Philippians 1:1–26: The Defense and Confirmation of the Gospel.” Review and Expositor 77 (1980): 327–36. –. “The Composition and Unity of Philippians: Some Neglected Literary Factors.” Novum Testamentum 27.2 (1985): 141–73. Gascou, Jean. Fiscalité et société en Égypte byzantine. Paris: Association des amis du Centre d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance, 2008. Gascou, Jean, and Leslie MacCoull. “Le cadastre d’Aphroditô.” Travaux et mémoires du centre de recherches d’histoire et civilisation byzantines 10 (1987): 103–58.

526

Bibliography

Gates, John E. An Analysis of the Lexicographic Resources used by American Biblical Scholars Today. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 8. Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972. Gaudemet, Jean. Le droit privé romain. Paris: Armand Colin, 1974. Gauthier, Philippe. Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs. Bulletin de correspondance héllénique. Supplément 12. Paris: de Boccard, 1985. –. “Nouvelles inscriptions de Claros: Décrets d’Aigai et de Mylasa pour des juges colophoniens.” Revue des études grecques 112 (1999): 1–36. Geoffrion, Timothy. The Rhetorical Purpose and the Political and Military Character of Philippians: A Call to Stand Firm. Lewiston: Mellen, 1993. Georgi, Dieter. Die Geschichte der Kollekte des Paulus für Jerusalem. Hamburg-Bergstedt: H. Reich, 1965. Gerber, Albrecht. Deissmann the Philologist. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. Gerlich, Fritz. Geschichte und Theorie des Kapitalismus. Munich: Duncker & Humblot, 1913. Gerstinger, Hans. “Ein Hausteilkaufvertrag aus Hermopolis Magna vom 12. Dezember 600 n. Chr.: Pap.Graec.Vindob. 26251.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 5 (1956): 1–6. –. “Gräko-ägyptische Landpachtverträge byzantinischer Zeit aus der Sammlung ‘Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer’ in Wien.” Wiener Studien 69 (1956): 237–55. –. “Sieben neue gräko-ägyptische Papyrusbriefe byzantinischer Zeit (VI.–VII. Jh. n. Chr.) aus der Sammlung ‘Papyri Erzherzog Rainer’.” Wiener Studien 70 (1957): 100– 116. Ghiron-Bistagne, Paulette. Recherches sur les acteurs dans la Grèce antique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1976. Gill, Christopher, Norman Postlethwaite, and Richard Seaford, eds. Reciprocity in Ancient Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Gingrich, F. Wilbur. “New Testament Lexicography and the Future.” The Journal of Religion 25.3 (1945): 179–82. Glare, P. G. W. “Liddell & Scott: Its Background and Present State.” Pages 1–18 in Studies in Lexicography. Edited by R. Burchfield. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. Glombitza, Otto. “Der Dank des Apostels: Zum Verständnis von Philipper IV 10–20.” Novum Testamentum 7.2 (1964): 135–41. Glotz, Gustav. Le travail dans la Grèce ancienne: Histoire économique de la Grèce depuis la période homérique jusqu’à la conquête romaine. Paris: Librairie F. Alcan, 1920. Gnilka, Joachim. Der Philipperbrief. 3rd ed. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 10.3. Freiburg: Herder, 1980. Goguel, Maurice. Introduction au Nouveau Testament. Vol. 4. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1926. González, Julián, and Michael C. Crawford. “The Lex Irnitana: A New Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law.” The Journal of Roman Studies 76 (1986): 147–243. Goodman, Martin. The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome (A.D. 66–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Goodrich, John. Paul as an Administrator of God in 1 Corinthians: The Graeco-Roman Context of 1 Corinthians. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Goodspeed, Edgar J. An Introduction to the New Testament. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1937.

Secondary Literature

527

Gradenwitz, Otto von. Einführung in die Papyruskunde: Erklärung ausgewählter Urkunden. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1900. Grégoire, Henri. “Du nouveau sur la hiérarchie de la secte Montaniste d’après une inscription grecque trouvée près de Philadelphie en Lydie.” Byzantion 2 (1925): 329–35. Greßmann, Hugo. “Ἡ κοινωνία τῶν δαιµονίων.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 20 (1921): 224–30. Grey, Cam. “Revisiting the ‘problem’ of agri deserti in the Late Roman Empire.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 20 (2007): 362–75. –. Constructing Communities in the Late Roman Countryside. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Griffin, Miriam. “De Beneficiis and Roman Society.” The Journal of Roman Studies 93 (2003): 92–113. –. “Seneca as a Sociologist: De Beneficiis.” Pages 89–122 in Seneca, uomo politico, e l’età di Claudio e di Nerone: Atti del Convegno internazionale (Capri, 25–27 marzo 1999). Bari: Epiduglia, 2003. Grier, Elizabeth. Accounting in the Zenon Papyri. New York: Columbia University Press, 1934. Groenewald, Evert P. Κοινωνία (Gemeenskap) bij Paulus. Delft: W. D. Meinema, 1932. Groningen, B. A. van. “Quelques notes sur le papyrus d’Oxyrhynchus XXII, 2342.” Chronique d’Égypte 32 (1957): 348–51. Gröschler, Peter. Die tabellae-Urkunden aus den pompejanischen und herkulanensischen Urkundenfunden. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1997. Grotius, Hugo. Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. Vol. 8. Rev. ed. Groningen: Ex officina W. Zuidema, 1829. Groves, Philip N. “A Model for Partnership: A Model for Partnership Distilled from the Relationship between Paul and the Philippian Church as a Tool to Examine the Partnership Programmes of the Anglican Communion and to Propose New Directions.” Ph.D. diss., The University of Birmingham, 2009. Grubbs, Judith E. Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood. London: Routledge, 2002. Gruen, Erich S. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. 2 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. Guarino, Antonio. La società in diritto romano. Naples: Jovene, 1988. Gupta, Nijay K. “‘I Will Not Be Put to Shame’: Paul, the Philippians, and the Honourable Wish for Death.” Neotestamentica 42.2 (2008): 253–67. Hadjioannou, K. “Review of T. B. Mitford, The Nymphaeum of Kafizin.” Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus (1982): 254–59. Haenchen, Ernst. “The Book of Acts as Source Material for the History of Early Christianity.” Pages 258–78 in Studies in Luke-Acts. Edited by L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn. London: SPCK, 1968. Hagedorn, Dieter. “Fünf Urkundenpapyri der Kölner Sammlung.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 13 (1974): 127–46. –. “Bemerkungen zu Urkunden.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 117 (1997): 183–86. Hahn, Ferdinand. Mission in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1965. Hahn, Ferdinand, Karl Kertelge, and Rudolf Schnackenburg, eds. Einheit der Kirche: Grundlegung im Neuen Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 1979. Hainz, Josef. “Gemeinschaft (κοινωνία) zwischen Paulus und Jerusalem (Gal 2, 9 f.): Zum paulinischen Verständnis von der Einheit der Kirche.” Pages 30–42 in Kontinuät und Einheit. Edited by P. G. Muller and W. Stenger. Freiburg: Herder, 1981.

528

Bibliography

–. Koinonia: ‘Kirche’ als Gemeinschaft bei Paulus. Regensburg: Pustet, 1982. –. “Κοινωνία bei Paulus.” Pages 375–91 in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi. Edited by L. Bormann, K. Del Tredici, A. Standhartinger. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Hands, A. R. Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome. London: Thames and Hudson, 1968. Hansen, G. Walter. “Transformation of Relationships: Partnership, Citizenship, and Friendship in Philippi.” Pages 181–204 in New Testament Greek and Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Gerald F. Hawthorne. Edited by A. M. Donaldson and T. B. Sailors. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. –. The Letter to the Philippians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Hansen, Inge Lyse. “Between Atticus and Aeneas: The Making of a Colonial Elite at Roman Butrint.” Pages 85–100 in Roman Colonies in the First Century of their Foundation. Edited by R. J. Sweetman. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2011. Hansen, William. Anthology of Ancient Greek Popular Literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998. Hanson, Ann E. “Three Papyri from the University of Michigan Collection.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 9 (1972): 227–36. Harding, Mark. “On the Historicity of Acts: Comparing Acts 9.23–5 with 2 Corinthians 11.32–3.” New Testament Studies 39.4 (1993): 518–38. Hardy, Edward R. The Large Estates of Byzantine Egypt. New York: AMS, 1968. Harl, Marguerite. “Remarques sur la langue des Chrétiens à propos du Patristic Greek Lexicon.” Journal of Theological Studies 14 (1963): 406–20. Harland, Philip A. Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. –. “Familial Dimensions of Group Identity: ‘Brothers’ (Α∆ΕΛΦΟΙ) in Associations of the Greek East.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124.3 (2005): 491–513. Harnack, Adolf. Die Pfaff ’schen Irenäus-Fragmente als fälschungen Pfaffs Nachgewiesen: Miscellen zu den Apostolischen Vätern, den Acta Pauli, Apelles, dem Muratorischen Fragment, den pseudocyprianischen Schriften und Claudianus Marmertus. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1900. –. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries. Translated by J. Moffatt. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961. Harper Jr., G. M. “The Relation of Ἀρχώνης, Μέτοχοι, and Ἔγγυοι to Each Other, to the Government and to the Tax Contract in Ptolemaic Egypt.” Aegyptus 14.2 (1934): 269–85. Harrauer, Hermann. “Hyperechios und seine Familie.” Pages 181–94 in Sixty-five Papyrological Texts. Edited by F. A. J. Hoogendijk and B. P. Muhs. Boston: Brill, 2008. Harries, Jill. Law and Empire in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Harrill, J. Albert. The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Harris, Edward M. “The Liability of Business Partners in Athenian Law: The Dispute Between Lycon and Megacleides ([Dem.] 52.20–1).” Classical Quarterly 39.2 (1989): 339–43. –. Democracy and the Rule of Law in Classical Athens: Essays on Law, Society, and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Harris, J. Rendel. “The Socalled Biblical Greek.” Expository Times 25.2 (1913): 54–55. Harris, W. V., ed. Rethinking the Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Secondary Literature

529

–. The Monetary Systems of the Greeks and Romans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. –. Rome’s Imperial Economy: Twelve Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Harrison, James R. Paul’s Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Harvey, A. E. “‘The Workman is Worthy of His Hire’: Fortunes of a Proverb in the Early Church.” Novum Testamentum 24.3 (1982): 209–221. Hasebroek, Johannes. Staat und Handel im alten Griechenland: Untersuchungen zur antiken Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1928. Hastings, Edward. The Epistle to the Philippians. Aberdeen: Speaker’s Bible Office, 1930. Hatch, William H. P. “Some Illustrations of New Testament Usage from Greek Inscriptions of Asia Minor.” Journal of Biblical Literature 27.2 (1908): 134–46. Hatzfeld, Jean. “Les Italiens résidant à Délos mentionnés dans les inscriptions de l’île.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 36 (1912): 5–218. –. “Inscriptions de Panamara.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 51 (1927): 57–122. Haussoullier, B. “Bulletin épigraphique: Un rescript d’Alexandre le Grand.” Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes 17.2 (1893): 188–90. Hawthorne, Gerald F. Philippians. Word Biblical Commentary 43. Waco: Word Books, 1983. –. Philippians. World Biblical Commentary 43. Rev. and enl. by R. P. Martin. Waco: Word Books, 2004. Heinrici, C. F. Georg. Der zweite Brief an die Korinther. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 6. 8th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900. Heisserer, A. J. “Alexander’s Letter to the Chians: A Redating of SIG3 283.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 22.2 (1973): 191–204. –. Alexander the Great and the Greeks: The Epigraphic Evidence. 1st ed. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980. Hellegouarc’h, J. Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la République. 2nd rev. ed. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1972. Hellerman, Joseph H. Reconstructing Honor in Roman Philippi: Carmen Christi as Cursus Pudorum. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Hemer, Colin J. “Towards a New Moulton and Milligan.” Novum Testamentum 24.2 (1982): 97–123. –. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Edited by C. H. Gempf. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989. Hendriksen, William A. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians. London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1962. Hengel, Martin. Property and Riches in the Early Church. Translated by J. Bowden. London: SCM, 1974. –. Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. –. The Pre-Christian Paul. London: SCM, 1991. Hennig, Dieter. Untersuchungen zur Bodenpacht im ptolemäisch-römischen Ägypten. Munich: München Universität, 1967. Hermesdorf, B. H. D. “De Apostel Paulus in lopende Rekening met de gemeente te Filippi.” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 1 (1961): 252–56.

530

Bibliography

Herrmann, Johannes. Studien zur Bodenpacht im Recht der graeco-aegyptischen Papyri. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1958. –. “Zum Edikt des Präfekten Gains Avidius Heliodorus.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abteilung) 92 (1973): 260–66. –. Kleine Schriften zur Rechtsgeschichte. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1990. Herrmann, Peter. “Neue Urkunden zur Geschichte von Milet im 2. Jahrhundert v. Chr.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Abt. Istambul) 15 (1965): 71– 117. –. “Zwei Inschriften von Kaunos und Baba Dağ.” Opuscula Atheniensia 10 (1971): 36– 39. –.“Schiedsgericht zwischen Temnos und Klazomenai.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Athen. Abt.) 29 (1979): 249–71. Herzog, Rudolf. “Heilige Gesetze von Kos.” Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 6 (1928): 1–59. –. “Griechische Königsbriefe.” Hermes 65.4 (1930): 455–71. Hicks, E. L. “Iasos.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 8 (1887): 83–118. –. “On Some Political Terms Employed in the New Testament.” The Classical Review 1.1 & 1.2 (1887): 4–8, 42–46. Hiderato, Inoue. “The Transfer of Money in Roman Egypt.” Kodai 10 (1999): 83–104. Hinnebusch, P. “Christian Fellowship in the Epistle to the Philippians.” The Bible Today (April 1964): 793–98. Hirschfeld, Otto. “Der Grundbesitz der römischen Kaiser in der ersten drei Jahrhunderten: Die kaiserlichen Domägen.” Klio 2 (1902): 284–315. Hirschmann, Vera-Elisabeth. Horrenda secta : Untersuchungen zum frühchristlichen Montanismus und seinen Verbindungen zur paganen Religion Phrygiens. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2005. Hock, Ronald F. “The Working Apostle: An Examination of Paul’s Means of Livelihood.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1974. –. “Simon the Shoemaker as an Ideal Cynic.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 17.1 (1976): 41–53. –. “Paul’s Tentmaking and the Problem of His Social Class.” Journal of Biblical Literature 97.4 (1978): 555–64. –. “The Workshop as a Social Setting for Paul’s Missionary Preaching.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979): 438–50. –. The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Hoesen, Henry B. van, and Allan C. Johnson. “A Lease of Crown Land on Papyrus.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 56 (1925): 213–28. Hollander, Harm W. “The Idea of Fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10.14–22.” New Testament Studies 55 (2010): 456–70. Holleaux, Maurice. “Note sur un décret d’Érétrie.” Revue des études grecques 10 (1897): 157–89. –. “Inscriptions de Priène.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 31 (1907): 382–88. –. “Éphèse et les Priéniens du Charax.” Revue des études grecques 29 (1916): 29–45. Holleaux, Maurice, and Pierre Paris. “Inscriptions d’Oenoanda.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 10 (1886): 216–35. Holloway, Paul A. “The Apocryphal ‘Epistle to the Laodiceans’ and the Partitioning of Philippians.” The Harvard Theological Review 91.3 (1998): 321–25.

Secondary Literature

531

–. Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. –. “Thanks for the Memories: On the Translation of Phil 1.3.” New Testament Studies 52.3 (2006): 419–32. –. “Alius Paulus: Paul’s Promise to Send Timothy at Philippians 2.19–24.” New Testament Studies 54.4 (2008): 542–56. Holmberg, Bengt. Paul and Power. The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. –. Sociology and the New Testament: An Appraisal. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1990. Holmstrand, Jonas. Markers and Meaning in Paul: An Analysis of 1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Galatians. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1997. Holtzmann, Heinrich J. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 3rd ed. Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1892. Homolle, Théophile. “Comptes et inventaires des temples déliens en l’année 279.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 14 (1890): 389–511. –. “Règlements de la phratrie des Labyadai.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 19 (1895): 5–69. –. “La loi de Cadys sur le prêt à intérêt.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 50 (1926): 3–106. Hooker, Morna D. “The Letter to the Philippians.” Pages 469–549 in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 11. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000. Horden, Peregrine, and Nicholas Purcell. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History. Malden: Blackwell, 2000. Horrell, David G., ed. Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999. Horrocks, Geoffrey. Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers. London: Longman, 1997. –. Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers. 2nd ed. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Horsfall, Nicholas. “Atticus Brings Home the Bacon.” Liverpool Classical Monthly 14.4 (1989): 60–62. –. The Culture of the Roman Plebs. London: Bristol Classical Press, 2003. Horsley, G. H. R. “The Inscriptions of Ephesos and the New Testament.” Novum Testamentum 34.2 (1992): 105–68. –. “The origin and Scope of Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, and Deissmann’s planned New Testament Lexicon: Some Unpublished Letters of G. A. Deissmann to J. H. Moulton.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 76.1 (1994): 187–216. Horsley, G. H. R., and John A. L. Lee. “A Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary Parallels: Some Interim Entries, 1.” Filologia Neotestamentaria 10 (1997): 55–84. Horst, Pieter W. van der. Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of a Millennium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 BCE–700 CE). Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991. Howgego, Christopher. “The Supply and Use of Money in the Roman World 200 B.C. to A.D. 300.” The Journal of Roman Studies 82 (1992): 1–31. Humann, Karl, and Otto Puchstein. Reisen in Kleinasien und Nordsyrien. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1890. Ioannatou, Marina. Affaires d’argent dans la correspondance de Cicéron: L’aristocratie sénatoriale face à ses dettes. Paris: de Boccard, 2006.

532

Bibliography

Ivanov, Venceslaus. De societatibus vectigalium publicorum populi Romani. Petropoli, 1910. Repr. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1971. Jaccottet, Anne-Françoise. Choisir Dionysos: Les associations dionysiaques ou la face cachée du dionysisme. Zürich: Akanthus, 2003. Jakab, Éva. “Berenike vor Gericht: Apokeryxis, Gesellschaft und Buchführung in P. Oxy. XXII 2342.” Tyche 16 (2001): 63–85. –. “Vertragsformulare im Imperium Romanum.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abteilung) 123 (2006): 71–101. –. Risikomanagement beim Weinkauf: Periculum und Praxis im Imperium Romanum. Munich: C. H. Beck, 2009. Jakab, Éva, and Ulrich Manthe. “Recht in der römischen Antike.” Pages 239–317 in Die Rechtskulturen der Antike: Vom Alten Orient bis zum Römischen Reich. Edited by U. Manthe. Munich: C. H. Beck, 2003. Jameson, Michael H. “A Decree of Themistokles from Troizen.” Hesperia 29.2 (1960): 198–223. –. “A Revised Text of the Decree of Themistokles from Troizen.” Hesperia 31.3 (1962): 310–15. Jaquette, James L. “A Not-So-Noble Death: Figured Speech, Friendship and Suicide in Philippians 1:21–26.” Neotestamentica 28 (1994): 177–92. Jewett, Robert. “The Epistolary Thanksgiving and the Integrity of Philippians.” Novum Testamentum 12.1 (1970): 40–53. –. A Chronology of Paul’s Life. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. –. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Johnson, Allan C. Roman Egypt to the Reign of Diocletian. Vol. 2 of An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. Edited by T. Frank. Paterson: Pageant Books, 1959. Johnson, Allan C., Paul R. Coleman-Norton, Franck C. Bourne. Ancient Roman Statutes: A Translation with Introduction, Commentary, Glossary, and Index. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961. Johnson, Allan C., and Louis C. West. Byzantine Egypt: Economic Studies. Amsterdam: A. K. Hakkert, 1967. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Writings of the New Testament: An interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. –. “Making Connections: The Material Expression of Friendship in the New Testament.” Interpretation 58.2 (2004): 158–71. Johnston, David. “Law and Commercial Life of Rome.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 43 (1997): 53–65. –. Roman Law in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Johnstone, Robert. Lectures Exegetical and Practical on the Epistle of Paul to the Philippians. Edinburgh: W. Oliphant, 1875. Jolowicz, H. F. “Review of R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, 332 B.C.–A.D. 640.” The Journal of Roman Studies 36 (1946): 202–204. Jolowicz, H. F., and Barry Nicholas. Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Jones, A. H. M. “Another Interpretation of the ‘Constitutio Antoniniana’.” The Journal of Roman Studies 26.2 (1936): 223–35. Jones, Christopher P. “A New Letter of Marcus Aurelius to the Athenians.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 8 (1971): 161–83. –. The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.

Secondary Literature

533

–. “Three New Letters of the Emperor Hadrian.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 161 (2007): 145–56. Jones, J. Walter. The Law and Legal Theory of the Greeks: An Introduction. Oxford: Clarendon, 1956. Jones, Maurice. “The Integrity of the Epistle to the Philippians.” The Expositor, 8th Series 8 (1914): 457–73. Jones, M. Christopher. “Juristes romains dans l’Orient grec.” Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 151.3 (2007): 1331–59. Jones, Nicholas F. The Associations of Classical Athens: The Response to Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Joubert, Stephan. Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.124. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Jouguet, Pierre. “Fouilles du port de Délos: Inscriptions.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 23 (1899): 56–85. Jordan, David R. “An Address to a Ghost at Olbia.” Mnemosyne 50.2 (1997): 212–19. Joshel, Sandra R. Work, Identity, and Legal Status at Rome: A Study of the Occupational Inscriptions. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992. Jouanique, Pierre. “Le ‘codex accepti et expensi’ chez Cicéron: Étude d’histoire de la comptabilité.” Revue historique de droit français et étranger 46 (1968): 1–31. Jourdan, George V. “ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ in I Corinthians 10:16.” Journal of Biblical Literature 67.2 (1948): 111–24. Judge, Edwin A. The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century: Some Prolegomena to the Study of New Testament Ideas of Social Obligation. London: The Tyndale Press, 1960. –. “St Paul as a Radical Critic of Society.” Pages 99–115 in Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E. A. Judge. Edited by D. M. Scholer. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008. Repr. from Interchange 16 (1974): 191–293. –. “Cultural Conformity and Innovation in Paul: Some Clues from Contemporary Documents.” Tyndale Bulletin 35 (1984): 3–24. –. “Did the Churches Compete with Cult Groups.” Pages 501–524 in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Novum Testamentum Supplements 110. Edited by J. T. Fitzgerald, T. H. Olbricht, and L. M. White. Leiden: Brill, 2003. –. The First Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament Essays. Edited by J. R. Harrison. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Juster, Jean. Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain: Leur condition juridique, économique et sociale. Vol. 1. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1914. Kajava, M. “Laodicea al mare e Catania.” Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia 78 (2005): 527–41. Kaser, Max. Das römische Zivilprozessrecht. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1966. –. Das römische Privatrecht: Das altrömische, das vorklassische und klassische Recht. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1971. –. “Neue Literatur zur ‘Societas’.” Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris 41 (1975): 278–338. –. Ius gentium. Cologne: Böhlau, 1993. Katzoff, Ranon, and David Schaps, eds. Law in the Documents of the Judaean Desert. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 96. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Kautsky, Karl. Foundations of Christianity. New York: Russell & Russell, 1953.

534

Bibliography

Kearsley, R. A. “Women in Public Life in the Roman East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora and Phoibe, Benefactress of Paul.” Tyndale Bulletin 50.2 (1999): 189–211. Repr. from Ancient Society: Resources for Teachers 15 (1985): 124–37. Kee, Howard C. Christian Origins in Sociological Perspective: Methods and Resources. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980. Keenan, James G. “Roman Criminal Law in a Berlin Papyrus Codex (BGU IV 1024– 1027).” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 35 (1989): 15–23. –. “Soldier and Civilian in Byzantine Hermopolis.” Pages 444–51 in Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists, Copenhagen, 23–29 August, 1992. Edited by A. Bülow-Jacobsen. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1994. –. “The Will of Gaius Longinus Castor.” The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 31.3 (1994): 101–107. Kehoe, Dennis P. “Allocation of Risk and Investment on the Estates of Pliny the Younger.” Chiron 18 (1988): 15–42. –. The Economics of Agriculture on Roman Imperial Estates in North Africa. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. –. “Approaches to Economic Problems in the Letters of Pliny the Younger: The Question of Risk in Agriculture.” ANRW 33.1:550–90. Part 2, Principat, 33.1. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: De Gruyter, 1989. –. Management and Investment on Estates in Roman Egypt during the Early Empire. Bonn: R. Habelt, 1992. –. Investment, Profit, and Tenancy: The Jurists and the Roman Agrarian Economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997. –. Law and Rural Economy in the Roman Empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007. Keil, Bruno. “ Zu zwei Pergamenischen Inschriften.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Athen. Abt.) 29 (1904): 73–78. Keil, Josef. “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos.” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 26 (1930): Beibl., 5–66. Kelly, Benjamin. Petitions, Litigation, and Social Control in Roman Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Kennedy, H. A. A. Sources of New Testament Greek: Or the Influence of the Septuagint on the Vocabulary of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895. –. “The Historical Background of the Epistle to the Philippians.” The Expository Times 10 (1898): 22–24. –. “The Financial Colouring of Philippians iv. 15–18.” The Expository Times 12 (1900): 43–44. Kertelge, Karl. “Kerygma und Koinonia: Zur theologischen Bestimmung der Kirche des Urchristentums.” Pages 327–39 in Kontinuät und Einheit. Edited by P. G. Muller and W. Stenger. Freiburg: Herder, 1981. Kirk, J. Andrew. “Did ‘Officials’ in the New Testament Church receive a Salary?” The Expository Times 84 (1973): 105–108. Klaffenbach, Günther. “ΟΡΟΙ ΕΝΝΑΙΑΣ.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Athen. Abt.) 76 (1961): 121–26. Klauck, Hans-Josef. “Compilation of Letters in Cicero’s Correspondence.” Pages 131–55 in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Novum Testamentum Supplements 110. Edited by J. T. Fitz-gerald, T. H. Olbricht, and L. M. White. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Klijn, A. F. J. “Paul’s Opponents in Philippians III.” Novum Testamentum 7.4 (1965): 278–84.

Secondary Literature

535

Kloppenborg, John S. The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Kloppenborg, John S., and Stephen G. Wilson, eds. Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World. London: Routledge, 1996. Knapp, Robert. Invisible Romans. London: Profile Books, 2011. Knibbe, Dieter. “Lex Portorii Asiae: Versuch einer Wiedergewinnung des Lateinischen Originaltextes des Zollgesetzes der römischen Provinz Asia (ΝΟΜΟΣ ΤΕΛΟΥΣ ΑΣΙΑΣ).” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 69 (2000): 147–73. Knibbe, Dieter, Helmut Engelmann, and B. Iplikçioğlu. “Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos XI: V. Grabinschriften.” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 59 (1989): 213–22. Kniep, Ferdinand. Societas Publicanorum. Jena: G. Hischer, 1896. Knoepfler, Denis. “Le contrat d’Érétrie en Eubée pour le drainage de l’étang de Ptéchai.” Pages 41–79 in Irrigation et drainage dans l’Antiquité: Qanāts et canalisations souterraines en Iran, en Égypte et en Grèce. Edited by P. Briant. Paris: Thotm, 2001. Knox, John. Chapters in a Life of Paul. New York: Abingdon, 1950. Koester, Helmut. “The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment (Philippians III).” New Testament Studies 8 (1962): 317–32. –. History and Literature of Early Christianity. Vol. 2 of Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000. Koerner, Reinhard. “Zu Recht und Verwaltung der griechischen Wasserversorgung nach den Inschriften.” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 22/23 (1974): 155–202. Koerner, Reinhard, and Klaus Hallof, eds. Inschriftliche Gesetzestexte der frühen griechischen Polis. Cologne: Böhlau, 1993. Kokkinia, Christina. “Ein Neues Grabepigramm aus Bithynien.” Epigraphica Anatolica 31 (1999): 167–70. Koperski, V. “Text Linguistics and the Integrity of Philippians: A Critique of Wolfgang Schenck’s Argument for a Compilation Hypothesis.” Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 68 (1992): 331–67. –. “The Early History of the Dissection of Philippians.” Journal of Theological Studies 44.2 (1993): 599–604. Konsolaki, E. “Odos Athenon kai Theophrastou.” Archaiologikon Deltion 34 (1979): 91– 92. Konstan, David. Friendship in the Classical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Korver, Jan. De Terminologie van het Crediet-Wezen in het Grieksch. New York: Arno, 1979. Koskenniemi, Heikki. Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1956. Kövecses, Zoltán. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Kreissig, Heinz. “Zur sozialen Zusammensetzung der früchristlichen Gemeinden im ersten Jahrhundert u.z.” Eirene 6 (1967): 91–100. Kreller, Hans. Erbrechtliche Untersuchungen auf Grund der graeco-aegyptischen Papyrusurkunden. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner, 1915. Kroll, John H. “The Greek Inscriptions of the Sardis Synagogue.” The Harvard Theological Review 94.1 (2001): 5–55.

536

Bibliography

Kruse, Thomas. “Drei Heidelberger Papyri aus byzantinischer Zeit.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 88 (1991): 133–40. Kümmel, Werner G. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1970. –. Introduction to the New Testament. Rev. and enl. ed. London: SCM, 1975. Kyrtatas, Dimitris J. The Social Structure of the Early Christian Communities. London: Verso, 1987. Labarre, Guy, and Marie-Thérèse Le Dinahet. “Les métiers du textile en Asie Mineure de l’époque hellénistique à l’époque impériale.” Pages 49–116 in Aspects de l’artisanat du textile dans le monde méditerranéen (Égypte, Grèce, monde romain). Collection de l’institut d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’antiquité, Université Lumière-Lyon 2. Paris: de Boccard, 1996. Laet, Siegfried J. de. Portorium: Étude sur l’organisation douanière chez les Romains, surtout à l’époque du Haut-Empire. New York: Arno, 1975. Lake, K. “The Critical Problems of the Epistle to the Philippians.” The Expositor, 8th Series 7 (1914): 481–93. Lallemand, Jacqueline. L’administration civile de l’Égypte de l’avènement de Dioclétien à la création du diocèse (284–382): Contribution à l’étude des rapports entre l’Égypte et l’Empire à la fin du IIIe et au IVe siècle. Bruxelles: Palais des Académies, 1964. Lalou, Élisabeth, ed. Les tablettes à écrire de l’antiquité à l’époque moderne: Actes du colloque du Centre National de Recherche Scientifique, Paris, Institut de France, 10– 11 octobre 1990. Turnhout: Brepols, 1992. Landvogt, Peter. Epigraphische Untersuchungen über den ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΟΣ: Ein Beitrag zum hellenistischen Beamtenwesen. Strassburg: M. Dumont Schauberg, 1908. Lapide, Cornelius Cornelii a. In omnes divi Pauli epistolas commentaria. Paris: Ioannem Iost, 1638. Larsen, J. A. O. “Cyrene and the Panhellenion.” Classical Philology 47.1 (1952): 7–16. Laum, Bernhard. Stiftungen in der griechischen und römischen Antike: Ein Beitrag zur antiken Kulturgeschichte. Leipzig: Scientia, 1964. Lee, John A. L. “A Note on Septuagint Material in the Supplement to Liddell and Scott.” Glotta 47.1 (1969): 234–42. –. A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983. –. “Some Features of the Speech of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel.” Novum Testamentum 27.1 (1985): 1–26. –. A History of New Testament Lexicography. Studies in Biblical Greek 8. New York: Peter Lang, 2003. –. “Etymological Follies: Three Recent Lexicons of the New Testament.” Novum Testamentum 55 (2013): 383–403. Lemerle, Paul. “Le testament d’un Thrace à Philippes.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 60 (1936): 336–43. Lessig, Hans. “Die Abendmahlsprobleme in Lichte der Neutestamentlichen Forschung seit 1900.” Ph.D. diss., Rheinischen Friedrich Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, 1953. Levick, Barbara. The Government of the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2000. Lewis, Naphtali. Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt: Case Studies in the Social History of the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. –. The Compulsory Public Services of Roman Egypt. 2nd ed. Florence: Gonnelli, 1997. Lietaert Peerbolte, L. J. Paul the Missionary. Leuven: Peeters, 2003.

Secondary Literature

537

Lightfoot, J. B. St Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. London: Macmillan, 1913. Repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1953. Lincoln, Andrew T. “Communion: Some Pauline Foundations.” Ecclesiology 5 (2009): 135–60. Lindemann, Andreas. Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 58. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1979. Link, Stefan. Landverteilung und Sozialer Frieden im archaischen Griechenland. Historia 69. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1991. Lintott, Andrew. Imperium Romanum: Politics and Administration. London: Routledge, 1993. Lipsius, Justus H. Das Attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren unter Benutzung des Attischen Prozesses. Leipzig: O. R. Reisland, 1915. Litewski, Wieslaw. “Remarques sur la dissolution de la société en droit romain.” Revue historique de droit français et étranger 50 (1972): 70–82. Llewelyn, Stephen R. “Sending Letters in the Ancient World: Paul and the Philippians.” Tyndale Bulletin 46 (1995): 337–56. Lohmeyer, Ernst. Der Brief an die Philipper. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 9.1. 12th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961. Lolos, Yannis. “Via Egnatia after Egnatius: Imperial Policy and Inter-Regional Contacts.” Pages 264–84 in Greek and Roman Networks in the Mediterranean. Edited by I. Malkin, C. Constantakopoulou, and K. Panagopoulou. London: Routledge, 2009. Longenecker, Bruce W. “Exposing the Economic Middle: A Revised Economy Scale for the Study of Early Urban Christianity.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (2009): 243–78. –. Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Longenecker, Bruce W., and Kelly D. Liebengood, eds. Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Longenecker, Richard N. “The Acts of the Apostles as a Witness to Early Palestinian Christianity.” Themelios 5.1 (1968): 15–23. Lorimer, W. L. “Deissmannism before Deissmann.” Expository Times 32.7 (1921): 330. Louw, Johannes P. Semantics of New Testament Greek. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. –. “How Do Words Mean – If They Do?” Filologia Neotestamentaria 4 (1991): 125–42. –. “The Analysis of Meaning in Lexicography.” Filologia Neotestamentaria 6 (1993): 139–48. Lübtow, Ulrich von. “Catos Seedarlehen.” Pages 103–17 in Festschrift für Erwin Seidl zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by H. Hübner, E. Klingmüller, and A. Wacke. Cologne: Hanstein, 1975. Lüdemann, Gerd. Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987. Luter, A. Boyd. “Partnership in the Gospel: The Role of Women in the Church at Philippi.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39 (1996): 411–20. Luter, A. Boyd, and Michelle V. Lee. “Philippians as Chiasmus: Key to the Structure, Unity and Theme Questions.” New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 89–101. MacCoull, L. S. B. “Why and How Was the Aphrodito Cadaster Made?” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010): 625–38. Mackay, B. S. “Further Thoughts on Philippians.” New Testament Studies 8 (1961): 161– 70.

538

Bibliography

MacGillivray, Erlend D. “Romans 16:2, προστάτις/προστάτης, and the Application of Reciprocal Relationships to New Testament Texts.” Novum Testamentum 53 (2011): 183–99. MacMullen, Ramsay. “Provincial Languages in the Roman Empire.” The American Journal of Philology 87.1 (1966): 1–17. Macqueron, Jean. Contractus scripturae: Contrats et quittances dans la pratique romaine. Camerino: Facoltà di Giurisprudenza dell’Università di Camerino, 1982. Macro, A. D. “Imperial Provisions for Pergamum: OGIS 484.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 17.2 (1976): 169–79. Maehler, Herwig. “Bemerkungen zu einigen Papyri in Wien.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 25 (1977): 185–95. Magda, Ksenija. Paul’s Territoriality and Mission Strategy: Searching for the Geographical Awareness Paradigm Behind Romans. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.266. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Magie, David. Roman Rule in Asia Minor. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Maiuri, A. “Nuove iscrizioni dalla Caria.” Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in Oriente 4–5 (1921–1922): 474–75 Malay, Hasan. “Three Decrees from Kyme.” Epigraphica Anatolica 2 (1989): 1–20. Malherbe, Abraham J. “‘Gentle as a Nurse’: The Cynic Background to I Thess II.” Novum Testamentum 12.2 (1970): 203–217. –. “Ancient Epistolary Theorists.” Ohio Journal of Religious Studies 5 (1977): 3–77. Repr., Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study 19; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. –. Social Aspects of Early Christianity. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1977. –. Social Aspects of Early Christianity. Rev. and enl. ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. –. Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. –. The Letters to the Thessalonians. New York: Doubleday, 2000. –. “Review of Frederick Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: Third Edition.” Review of Biblical Literature (2002). Online: http://www.bookreviews.org. –. Paul and the Popular Philosophers. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Malina, Bruce J., and Moxnes Halvor. Economy in the New Testament. Urkristendommen. Prosjekthefte 2. Oslo: Oslo Universitetet, 1987. Malina, Bruce J., and John J. Pilch. Social-science Commentary on the Letters of Paul. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Malmendier, Ulrike M. Societas Publicanorum: Staatliche Wirtschaftsaktivitäten in den Händen privater Unternehmer. Cologne: Böhlau, 2002. –. “Roman Shares.” Pages 31–42 in The Origins of Value: The Financial Innovations that Created Modern Capital Markets. Edited by W. N. Goetzmann and K. G. Rouwenhorst. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Manzanera, M. “Koinonia en Hch 2:42: Notas sobre su interpretación y origen históricodoctrinal.” Estudios Eclesiásticos 52 (1977): 307–29. Marache, René. “Juvénal – peintre de la société de son temps.” ANRW 33.1:592–639. Part 2, Principat, 33.1. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: De Gruyter, 1989.

Secondary Literature

539

Marchal, Joseph A. Hierarchy, Unity, and Imitation: A Feminist Rhetorical Analysis of Power Dynamics in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. –. “With Friends like These…: A Feminist Rhetorical Reconsideration of Scholarship and the Letter to the Philippians.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29.1 (2006): 77–106. Markides, M. “Annual Report of the Curator of Antiquities.” Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 1915 (1916): 1–18. Markschies, Christoph. Between Two Worlds: Structures of Earliest Christianity. London: SCM, 1999. Marksteiner, Thomas, Barbara Stark, Michael Wörrle, and Banu Yener-Marksteiner. “Eine dörfliche Siedlung und ein ländlicher Kultplatz im Umland von Limyra. ” Chiron 37 (2007): 243–93. Marshall, I. Howard. Luke, Historian and Theologian. Exeter: Paternoster, 1970. –. New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods. Exeter: Paternoster, 1977. –. The Epistle to the Philippians. Epworth commentaries. London: Epworth, 1992. Marshall, Peter. Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul’s Relationship with the Corinthians. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.23. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1987. Martha, Jules. “Inscriptions d’Achaïe.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 2 (1878): 94–101. Martin, Dale B. “Review Essay: Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24 (2001): 51–64. Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. Word Biblical Commentary 40. Waco: Word Books, 1986. –. The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary. The Tyndale New Testament Commentary. 2nd rev. ed. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1987. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. On Religion. Edited by R. Niebuhr. New York: Schocken Books, 1964. Masson, Olivier. “À propos des inscriptions chypriotes de Kafizin.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 105 (1981): 623–49. Mathews, John B. “Hospitality and the New Testament Church: An Historical and Exegetical Study.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1965. Matthews, John F. “The Tax Law of Palmyra: Evidence for Economic History in a City of the Roman East.” The Journal of Roman Studies 74 (1984): 157–80. –. Laying Down the Law: A Study of the Theodosian Code. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Mauss, Marcel. Essai sur le don: Forme et raison d’échange dans les sociétés archaïques. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2007. Mayer, Emanuel. The Ancient Middle Classes: Urban Life and Aesthetics in the Roman Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012. Mazza, Roberta. “P.Oxy. XVI 1911 e i conti annuali dei pronoetai.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 122 (1998): 161–72. McDermott, John M. “The Biblical Doctrine of ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ.” Biblische Zeitschrift 19 (1975): 64–77, 219–33. McDonald, Lee M., and Stanley E. Porter. Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000. McKechnie, Paul, ed. Thinking like a Lawyer: Essays on Legal History and General History for John Crook on his Eightieth Birthday. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

540

Bibliography

McKnight, Edgar V. “Is the New Testament written in ‘Holy Ghost Greek’?” The Bible Translator 16 (1965): 87–93. –. “The New Testament and ‘Biblical Greek’.” Journal of Bible and Religion 34 (1966): 36–42. McLean, Bradley H. An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (323 B.C.–A.D. 337). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2002. Mealand, David L. “Hellenistic Greek and the New Testament: A Stylometric Perspective.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (2012): 323–45. Mearns, Chris. “The Identity of Paul’s Opponents at Philippi.” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 194–204. Meecham, Henry G. Light from Ancient Letters: Private Correspondence in the non-literary Papyri of Oxyrhynchus of the first four Centuries, and its Bearing on New Testament Language and Thought. London: Allen & Unwin, 1923. –. “The Meaning of (τὸ) λοιπόν in the New Testament.” The Expository Times 48 (1936– 1937): 331–32. Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. Meeks, Wayne A., and John T. Fitzgerald, eds. The Writings of St. Paul. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 2007. Mees, Allard W. Organisationsformen römischer Töpfer-Manufakturen am Beispiel von Arezzo und Rheinzabern: Unter Berücksichtigung von Papyri, Inschriften und Rechtsquellen. Part 2. Mainz: Rudolf Habelt, 2002. Meggitt, Justin J. Paul, Poverty and Survival. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998. –. “Response to Martin and Theissen.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24 (2001): 85–94. –. “Sources: Use, Abuse, Neglect: The Importance of Ancient Popular Culture.” Pages 241–53 in Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church. Edited by E. Adams and D. G. Horrell. London: Westminster John Knox, 2004. Ménager, L. R. “‘Naulum’ et ‘receptum rem salvam fore’: Contribution à l’étude de la responsabilité contractuelle dans les transports maritimes en droit romain.” Revue historique de droit français et étranger 38 (1970): 177–213, 385–411. Mendel, Gustave. “Inscriptions de Bithynie.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 24 (1900): 361–426. Mengel, Berthold. Studien zum Philipperbrief: Untersuchungen zum situativen Kontext unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Frage nach der Ganzheitlichkeit oder Einheitlichkeit eines paulinischen Briefes. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1982. Menzel, Adolf. Griechische Soziologie. Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1936. Meritt, Benjamin D. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 11.3 (1942): 275–98. –. “Note on the Text of the Decree of Themistokles.” Hesperia 31.4 (1962): 413. –. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 32.1 (1963): 1–56. Metzger, Bruce M. The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977. Metzger, Ernest, ed. A Companion to Justinian’s Institutes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998. Metzner, Rainer. “In aller Freundschaft: Ein frühchristlicher Fall freundschaftlicher Gemeinschaft (Phil 2.25–30).” New Testament Studies 48.1 (2002): 111–31. Meyer, Elizabeth A. Legitimacy and Law in the Roman World: Tabulae in Roman Belief and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Secondary Literature

541

–. “Roman Tabulae, Egyptians Christians and the Adoption of the Codex.” Chiron 37 (2007): 295–347. Meyer, Heinrich A. W. Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch über die Briefe Pauli an die Philipper, Kolosser und an Philemon. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 9.4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1874. –. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians. Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Translated by W. P. Wilson. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1875. Meyer, Paul M. Juristische Papyri: Erklärung von Urkunden zur Einführung in die juristische Papyruskunde. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1920. –. “Juristischer Papyrusbericht V.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abteilung) 48 (1928): 587–633. Michael, J. Hugh. “The Philippian Interpolation – Where Does It End?” The Expositor, 8 th Series 19 (1920): 49–63. –. The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians. Moffatt New Testament Commentary. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928. Michaelis, D. Wilhelm. Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 11. Leipzig: Deichert, 1935. Mickwitz, Gunnar. “Economic Rationalism in Graeco-Roman Agriculture.” The English Historical Review 52.208 (1937): 577–89. Migeotte, Léopold. “Épigraphie et littérature grecques: L’exemple des souscriptions publiques.” Cahiers des études anciennes 14 (1982): 47–51. –. L’emprunt public dans les cités grecques: Recueil des documents et analyse critique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1984. –. “Souscriptions publiques en Béotie.” Pages 311–16 in Colloques internationaux du CNRS “La Béotie antique”. Paris: Éditions du CNRS, 1985. –. Les souscriptions publiques dans les cités grecques. Genève: Droz, 1992. –. “Un fonds d’achat de grain à Coronée.” Pages 11–23 in Boeotia antiqua III: Papers in Boiotian History, Institutions and Epigraphy. Edited by J. M. Fossey et al. Amsterdam: Gieben, 1993. –. L’économie des cités grecques de l’archaïsme au Haut-Empire romain. 2nd ed. Paris: Ellipses, 2007. Millar, Fergus. “The World of The Golden Ass.” The Journal of Roman Studies 71 (1981): 63–75. Millett, Paul C. “Hesiod and his World.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 210 (1984): 84–115. –. “Sale, Credit and Exchange in Athenian Law and Society.” Pages 167–94 in Nomos: Essays in Athenian Law, Politics and Society. Edited by P. Cartledge, P. C. Millett, S. Todd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. –. Lending and Borrowing in Ancient Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Minaud, Gérard. La comptabilité à Rome: Essai d’histoire économique sur la pensée comptable commerciale et privée dans le monde antique romain. Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, 2005. –. “Rationalité modulable des comptabilités.” Topoi Orient-Occident 12/13 (2005): 271– 81. –. “Les livres de comptes privés et le droit au temps de Néron.” Pages 133–44 in Neronia VIII: Bibliothèques, livres et culture écrite dans l’empire romain de César à Hadrien. Edited by Y. Perrin. Bruxelles: Latomus, 2010.

542

Bibliography

Minnen, Peter van. “Berenice, A Business Woman from Oxyrhynchus: Appearance and Reality.” Pages 59–70 in The Two-Faces of Graeco-Roman Egypt: Greek and Demotic and Greek-Demotic Texts and Studies Presented to P. W. Pestman. Edited by A. M. F. W. Verhoogt and S. P. Vleeming. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Minon, Sophie. Les inscriptions éléennes dialectales (VIe–IIe siècle avant J.-C.). Vol. 1. Hautes études du monde gréco-romain 38. Genève: Droz, 2007. Mirković, Miroslava. “Count Ammonios and Paying Taxes in the Name of Somebody Else in the Cadastre from Aphrodito.” Pages 565–72 in Proceedings of the TwentyFifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor, July 29–August 4, 2007. Edited by T. Gagos. Ann Arbor: Scholarly Publishing Office, University of Michigan Library, 2010. Mitchell, Margaret M. “‘Diotrephes does not receive us’: The Lexicographical and Social Context of 3 John 9–10.” Journal of Biblical Literature 117.2 (1998): 299–320. Mitford, Terence B. “Roman Cyprus.” ANRW 7.2:1285–1384. Part 2, Principat, 7.2. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: De Gruyter, 1980. Mitsos, Markellos. “Inscription de Stymphale.” Revue des études grecques 59/60 (1946): 150–74. Mitteis, Ludwig. “Über die Freilassung durch den Teileigentümer eines Sklaven.” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 3 (1906): 252–56. –. Römisches Privatrecht bis auf die Zeit Diokletians. Vol 1. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1908. Mitthof, Fritz. Annona Militaris: Die Heeresversorgung im spätantiken Ägypten. Florence: Gonnelli, 2001. Modrzejewski, Joseph. “La règle de droit dans l’Égypte Ptolémaïque (État des questions et perspectives de recherches).” Pages 125–73 in Essays in Honor of C. Bradford Welles. New Haven: The American Society of Papyrologists, 1966. –. “La règle de droit dans l’Égypte Romaine (État des questions et perspectives de richerches).” Pages 317–77 in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology. Edited by D. H. Samuel. Toronto: A. M. Hakkert, 1970. Moffatt, James. An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911. –. “Philippians II 26 and 2 Tim. IV 13.” Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1917): 311– 12. Mommsen, Theodor. “XV. S.C. de Thisbaeis A.V.C. DLXXXIV.” Ephemeris epigraphica 1 (1872): 278–98. Repr. pages 287–96 in Gesammelte Schriften. Vol. 8. Berlin: Weidmann, 1913. Monceaux, Paul. “Inscriptions de Salamine.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 6 (1882): 521–39. Monson, Andrew. From the Ptolemies to the Romans: Political and Economic Change in Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Montevecchi, Orsolina. La papirologia. Turin: Società editrice internazionale, 1973. Morelli, Federico. “Note a P. Bad. IV 95.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 122 (1998): 139–43. Morris, Leon. “Καὶ ἅπαξ ϰαὶ δίς.” Novum Testamentum 1.3 (1956): 205–208. Morrow, Glenn R. Plato’s Cretan City: A Historical Interpretation of the Laws. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960. Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Moule, H. C. G. The Epistle to the Philippians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.

Secondary Literature

543

Moulton, James H. “Review of G. A. Deissmann, Light from the East.” The Expository Times 20 (1908): 30–33. –. “New Testament Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery.” Pages 461–505 in Essays on Some Biblical Questions of the Day. Edited by H. Barclay Swete. London: Macmillan, 1909. –. “The Science of Language and the Study of the New Testament.” Pages 117–45 in The Christian Religion in the Study and in the Street. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1919. –. From Egyptian Rubbish-Heaps: Five Popular Lectures on the New Testament, with a Sermon, delivered at Northfield, Massachusetts. 3rd ed. London: Epworth, 1927. Müller, Ulrich B. Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1993. Müller-Bardorff, J. “Zur Frage der literarischen Einheit des Philipperbriefes.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Friedrich-Schiller Universität Jena 7 (1957–1958): 591– 604. Mulliez, Dominique. “Notes d’épigraphie delphique I: Les affranchissements du théâtre et la chronologie delphique.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 107 (1983): 429– 50. –. “Notes d’épigraphie delphique II et III.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 108 (1984): 355–89. –. “Notes d’épigraphie delphique IV-V.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 110 (1986): 433–60. –. “Notes d’épigraphie delphique VIII: L’empereur Claude, témoin et archonte à Delphes.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 125 (2001): 289–303. Mullins, Terence Y. “Formulas in New Testament Epistles.” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 380–90. Muñoz-Iglesias, S. “Concepto Bíblico de Κοινωνία,” Semana Bíblica Española 13 (1953): 195–223. Musculus, Wolfgang. In Diui Pauli Epistolas ad Philippenses, Colossenses, Thessalonicenses ambas, & primam ad Timotheum, commentarii. Basel: Heruagian, 1565. Mussies, G. “Greek in Palestine and the Diaspora.” Pages 1040–64 in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions. Edited by Z. Safrai and M. Stern. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976. Nadjo, Léon. L’argent et les affaires à Rome des origines au IIe siècle avant J.-C.: Étude d’un vocabulaire technique. Louvain: Peeters, 1989. Nägeli, Theodor. Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus. Basel: Buchdruckerei zum Basler Berichthaus, 1904. Neeve, Pieter W. de. “A Roman Landowner and his Estates: Pliny the Younger.” Athenaeum 70 (1990): 363–402. Nicolet, Claude. “Polybius VI, 17, 4 and the Composition of the Societates Publicanorum.” The Irish Jurist 6 (1971): 163–76. –. L’ordre équestre à l’époque républicaine (312–43 av. J.-C.): Définitions juridiques et structures sociales. Vol. 1. Paris: de Boccard, 1974. –. Rendre à César: Économie et société dans la Rome antique. Paris: Gallimard, 1988. –. “A propos du règlement douanier d’Asie: dèmosiônia et les prétendus Quinque publica Asiae.” Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 134.3 (1990): 675–98. Repr. pages 335–52 in Censeurs et publicains: Économie et fiscalité dans la Rome antique. Paris: Fayard, 2000.

544

Bibliography

–. “Le monumentum Ephesenum et les dîmes d’Asie.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 115 (1991): 465–80. Repr. pages 353–65 in Censeurs et publicains: Économie et fiscalité dans la Rome antique. Paris: Fayard, 2000. –. “Le monumentum Ephesenum et la délimitation du portorium d’Asie.” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome 105.2 (1993): 929–59. Repr. pages 367–84 in Censeurs et publicains: Économie et fiscalité dans la Rome antique. Paris: Fayard, 2000. –. Censeurs et publicains: Économie et fiscalité dans la Rome antique. Paris: Fayard, 2000. Nielsen, Bruce E. “A Woman of Property: Techosous alias Eudaimonis.” The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 31.3–4 (1994): 129–36. Nielsen, Bruce E., and Klass A. Worp. “New Papyri from the New York University Collection: III.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 140 (2003): 129–50. Nijf, Onno M. van. The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1997. Nongbri, Brent. “Two Neglected Textual Variants in Philippians 1.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128.4 (2009): 803–808. Novick, Tzvi. “Charity and Reciprocity: Structures of Benevolence in Rabbinic Literature.” The Harvard Theological Review 105.1 (2012): 33–52. Oakes, Peter. “Jason and Penelope Hear Philippians 1.1–11.” Pages 155–64 in Understanding, Studying and Reading: New Testament Essays in Honour of John Ashton. Edited by C. Rowland and C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 153. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. –. Philippians: From People to Letter. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. –. “Constructing Poverty Scales for Graeco-Roman Society: A Response to Steven Friesen’s ‘Poverty in Pauline Studies’.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (2004): 367–71. –. Reading Romans in Pompeii: Paul’s Letter at Ground Level. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. O’Brien, Peter T. Introductory Thanksgiving in the Letters of Paul. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977. –. “The Fellowship Theme in Philippians.” Reformed Theological Review 37 (1978): 9– 18. –. The Epistle to the Philippians. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Oertel, Friedrich. Die Liturgie: Studien zur ptolemäischen und kaiserlichen Verwaltung Ägyptens. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1917. Repr., Aalen: Scientia, 1965. Ogereau, Julien M. “The Jerusalem Collection as Κοινωνία: Paul’s Global Politics of Socio-Economic Equality and Solidarity.” New Testament Studies 58.3 (2012): 360–78. Oliver, James H. “An Inscription concerning the Epicurean School at Athens.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 69 (1938): 494–99. –. “The Sacred Gerusia.” Hesperia Supplements 6 (1941): 1–204. –. “New Evidence on the Attic Panhellenion.” Hesperia 20.1 (1951): 31–33. –. “On the Athenian Decrees for Ulpius Eubiotus.” Hesperia 20.4 (1951): 350–54. –. “Marcus Aurelius: Aspects of Civic and Cultural Policy in the East.” Hesperia Supplements 13 (1970): 1–168. –. “Notes on Marcus Aurelius, EM 13366.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 14 (1974): 265–67. –. “Notes on Marcus Aurelius, EM 13366.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 16 (1975): 315–16.

Secondary Literature

545

–. “Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus [To the Athenians], A.D. 165.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 20 (1976): 179–81. –. “Antoninus Pius to Ptolemais Barca about the Capitolia.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 20.2 (1979): 157–59. –. “Greek Applications for Roman Trials.” The American Journal of Philology 100.4 (1979): 543–58. –. “The Areopagus and the Whole City Honor M. Ulpius Eubiotus Leurus.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 38 (1980): 107–14. –. Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1989. Omar, Sayed. “Eine Rolle mit sieben Hypomnemata aus dem Ägyptischen Museum zu Kairo.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 50 (1983): 73–91. Ortolan, J. Explication historique des Instituts de l’Empereur Justinien. 4 vols. 12th ed. Paris: Plon, 1883. Osiek, Carolyn. Philippians, Philemon. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000. Osiek, Carolyn, and Helmut Koester. Shepherd of Hermas: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999. Özhan, T., and M. Tombul. “A New Hellenistic Decree of ΤΟ ΚΟΙΝΟΝ ΤΩΝ ΠΟΛΕΩΝ from Ilion.” Epigraphica Anatolica 36 (2003): 109–14. Palme, Bernhard. “Flavius Sarapodorus, ein agens in rebus aus Hermupolis.” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 40 (1994): 43–68. Panikulam, George. Koinōnia in the New Testament: A Dynamic Expression of Christian Life. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979. Parassoglou, George M. “Property Records of L. Pompeius Niger.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 7 (1970): 85–98. Paribeni, R., and P. Romanelli. “Studii e ricerche archeologiche nell’Anatolia meridionale.” Monumenti antichi 23 (1914): 8–274. Parker, A. J. Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, 1992. Paton, W. R. “Sites in E. Karia and S. Lydia.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 20 (1900): 57–80. Perdrizet, Paul. “Inscriptions de Philippes: Les Rosalies.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 24 (1900): 299–323. Perrot, Georges. Mémoires d’archéologie, d’épigraphie et d’histoire. Paris: Didier, 1875. Perry, Ben E. “Demetrius of Phalerum and the Aesopic Fables.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 93 (1962): 287–346. Pervo, Richard I. A Commentary on the Book of Acts. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Pesch, Rudolf. Paulus und seine Lieblingsgemeinde: Drei Briefe an die Heiligen von Philippi. Freiburg: Herder, 1985. Peterlin, Davorin. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the light of Disunity in the Church. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995. Peterman, Gerald W. “‘Thankless Thanks’: The Epistolary Social Convention in Philippians 4:10–20.” Tyndale Bulletin 42.2 (1991): 261–70. –. “Romans 15:26: Make a Contribution or Establish Fellowship?” New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 457–63. –. Paul’s Gift from Philippi: Conventions of Gift-exchange and Christian Giving. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

546

Bibliography

–. “Social Reciprocity and Gentle Debt to Jews in Romans 15:26–27.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50.4 (2007): 735–46. Petzl, Georg, and Elmar Schwertheim. Hadrian und die dionysischen Künstler: Drei in Alexandria Troas neugefundene Briefe des Kaisers an die Künstler-Vereinigung. Bonn: R. Habelt, 2006. Piejko, Francis. “Textual Supplements to the New Inscriptions concerning Temnos.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Abt. Istambul) 36 (1986): 95–97. Pilhofer, Peter. Die erste christliche Gemeinde Europas. Vol. 1. of Philippi. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995. Plassart, André. “Inscriptions de Delphes: Règlement tégéate concernant le retour des bannis à Tégée, en 324 av. J.-C.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 38 (1914): 101–188. Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1915. –. A Commentary on St Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. London: Paternoster, 1919. Plummer, Robert L. Paul’s Understanding of the Church’s Mission: Did the Apostle Paul expect the Early Christian Communities to Evangelize? Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006. Poetzsch, Karl. Der Begriff und die Bedeutung des socius im römischen Strafrecht. Düsseldorf: G. H. Nolte, 1934. Poland, Franz. Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens. Leipzig: Teubner, 1909. Repr. Zentral-Antiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 1967. Pólay, E. The Contracts in the Triptychs found in Transylvania and their Hellenistic Features. Studia Historica 133. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1980. Pollard, T. E. “The Integrity of Philippians.” New Testament Studies 13 (1966): 57–66. Popkes, W. “Gemeinschaft.” Pages 1100–46 in vol. 9 of Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum: Sachwörterbuch zur Auseinandersetzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt. Edited by T. Klauser. Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1976. Porges, Sarah B. “A Lease of an Olive Grove.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 92 (1961): 469–80. Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. –. Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice. Studies in Biblical Greek 6. New York: Peter Lang, 1996. –. “Did Paul Speak Latin?” Pages 289–308 in Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman. Edited by S. E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Porter, Stanley E., and Sean A. Adams, eds. Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Porter, Stanley E., and Andrew W. Pitts, eds. The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2013. Poster, Carol, and Linda C. Mitchell, eds. Letter-Writing Manuals and Instruction from Antiquity to the Present. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2007. Pottier, Edmond, and Amédée Hauvette-Besnault. “Inscription de Téos.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 4 (1880): 110–21. Pouilloux, Jean. “Le dernier livre de T. B. Mitford.” Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes 108 (1982): 99–103. Pratscher, Wilhelm. “Der Verzicht des Paulus auf finanziellen Unterhalt durch seine Gemeinden: Ein Aspekt seiner Missionsweise.” New Testament Studies 25 (1979): 284– 98.

Secondary Literature

547

Préaux, Claire. L’économie royale des Lagides. Bruxelles: Édition de la fondation égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1939. –. “Ostraca ptolémaïques du Musée du Caire.” Chronique d’Égypte 28 (1953): 322–34. –. “Aspect verbal et préverbe: l’usage d’ἈΠΈΧΩ dans les ostraca.” Chronique d’Égypte 29 (1954): 139–46. Prêteux, Franck. “Priapos Bébrykès dans la Propontide et les détroits: Succès d’un mythe local.” Revue des études grecques 118 (2005): 246–65. Pretorius, Emil. “Role Models for a Model Church: Typifying Paul’s Letter to the Philippians.” Neotestamentica 32.2 (1998): 547–71. Princesses Sophia and Irene, and Τ. Η. Arvanitopoulou. Ἀρχαιολογικὰ Ποικίλα. Athens: Dabia, 1960. Pringsheim, Fritz. “Stephanos zu D. 17, 2, 52, 6.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abteilung) 45 (1925): 491–92. –. The Greek Law of Sale. Weimar: H. Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1950. Pro Oriente. Auf dem Weg zur Einheit des Glaubens: KOINONIA – Erstes ekklesiologisches Kolloquium zwischen orthodoxen und römisch-katholischen Theologen, veranstaltet vom Stiftungsfonds PRO ORIENTE in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Orthodoxen Zentrum des ökumenischen Patriarchats, Chambésy, und dem Sekretariat für die Einheit der Christen, Rom. Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1976. Prott, H. von. “Römischer Erlass betreffend die öffentliche Bank von Pergamon.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Athen. Abt.) 27 (1902): 78–89. Pugliese Carratelli, G. Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene a delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 29/30 (1967–1968): 472–73. Purser, L. “The Roman Account-Book.” Hermathena 6.13 (1886): 209–18. Rabel, Ernst. “Nachgeformte Rechtsgeschäfte.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abteilung) 28 (1907): 311–379. Raggi, Andrea. “Senatus consultum de Asclepiade Clazomenio sociisque.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 135 (2001): 73–116. Rahtjen, B. D. “The Three Letters of Paul to the Philippians.” New Testament Studies 6 (1960): 167–73. Ramsay, W. M. Pauline and Other Studies in Early Christian History. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1906. –. “A Doubtful Inscription.” Klio 23 (1930): 20–23. –. “Mystery of a Doubtful Inscription.” Klio 25 (1932): 422–27. Rapske, Brian. The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody. Vol. 3 of The Book of Acts in its First-Century Setting. Edited by B. W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Rathbone, Dominic. Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third-Century A.D. Egypt: The Heroninos Archive and the Appianus Estate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. –. “The Financing of Maritime Commerce in the Roman Empire, I–II AD.” Pages 197– 229 in Credito e moneta nel mondo romano: Atti degli incontri capresi di storia dell’economia antica (Capri 12–14 ottobre 2000). Edited by E. Lo Cascio. Bari: Edipuglia, 2003. Rauh, Nicholas K. “Cicero’s Business Friendships: Economics and Politics in the Late Roman Republic.” Aevum 60.1 (1986): 3–30. –. The Sacred Bonds of Commerce: Religion, Economy, and Trade Society at Hellenistic Roman Delos. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1993. Reden, Sitta von. Money in Ptolemaic Egypt: From the Macedonian Conquest to the End of the Third Century BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

548

Bibliography

Reed, Jeffrey T. “Philippians 3:1 and the Epistolary Hesitation Formulas: The Literary Integrity of Philippians, Again.” Journal of Biblical Literature 115.1 (1996): 63–90. –. A Discourse Analysis of Philippians. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Reeve, Anne, ed. Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament (Galatians to the Apocalypse): Facsimile of the Final Latin Text with all Earlier Variants. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993. Reumann, John. “Contributions of the Philippian Community to Paul and to Earliest Christianity.” New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 438–57. –. Philippians. The Anchor Bible 33B. New York: Doubleday, 2008. Reynolds, Joyce M. “Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania: A Supplement.” Papers of the British School at Rome 23 (1955): 124–47. –. “Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and the Cyrenaican Cities.” The Journal of Roman Studies 68 (1978): 111–21. Ricl, Marijana. “Donations of Slaves and Freeborn Children to Deities in Roman Macedonia and Phrygia: A Reconsideration.” Tyche 16 (2001): 127–60. Riesner, Rainer. Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology. Translated by D. Stott. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Rilliet, A. Commentaire sur l’épître de l’apôtre Paul aux Philippiens, accompagné de recherches sur l’église de Philippes et sur les dispositions qui favorisaient chez les populations païennes d’Europe l’accès de la prédication apostolique. Paris: Delay, 1841. Ritti, Tullia, and Salim Yilmaz. “Gladiatori e venationes a Hierapolis di Frigia.” Memorie della Classe di Scienze morali e storiche dell’Accademia dei Lincei 10 (1998): 486–538. Rizakis, Athanasios D. “La politeia dans les cités de la confédération achéenne.” Tyche 5 (1990): 109–34. Robert, Louis. “Notes d’épigraphie hellénistique.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 54 (1930): 322–51. –. Hellenica: Recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques. Vol. 2. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1946. –. Hellenica: Recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques. Vol. 10. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1955. –. Nouvelles Inscriptions de Sardes. Vol. 1. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient Adrien Maisonneuve, 1964. –. Hellenica: Recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques. Vol. 13. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1965. –. “Théophane de Mytilène à Constantinople.” Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 113.1 (1969): 42–64. –. Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec. Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1971. Robert, Louis and Jeanne. Claros: Décrets hellénistiques. Vol. 1. Paris: Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1989. Roberts, Terry. “Review of Frederick Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: Third Edition.” Review of Biblical Literature (2002). Online: http://www.bookreviews.org. Robertson, A. T. Paul’s Joy in Christ: Studies in Philippians. Rev. ed. Nashville: Broadman, 1959. Robinson, Olivia F. The Sources of Roman Law: Problems and Methods for Ancient Historians. London: Routledge, 1997.

Secondary Literature

549

Rochette, Bruno. Le latin dans le monde grec: Recherches sur la diffusion de la langue et des lettres latines dans les provinces hellénophones de l’Empire romain. Bruxelles: Latomus, 1997. Rohrbaugh, Richard L. “Methodological Considerations in the Debate over the Social Class Status of Early Christians.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 52.3 (1984): 519–46. Rolland, Philippe. “La structure littéraire et l’unité de l’épître aux Philippiens.” Recherches de science religieuse 64 (1990): 213–16. Roller, Otto. Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom antiken Briefe. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1933. Rosivach, Vincent J. “Manning the Athenian Fleet, 433–426 BC.” American Journal of Ancient History 10 (1985 [1993]): 41–66. Rostovtzeff, M. I. “Die Domäne von Pogla.” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 4 (1900): 37–46. –. Geschichte der Staatspacht in der römischen Kaiserzeit bis Diokletian. Leipzig: Dieterich, 1902. –. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. 2 vols. 2nd and rev. ed by P. M. Fraser. Oxford: Clarendon, 1957. Roth, Jonathan P. The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C.–A.D. 235). Leiden: Brill, 1999. Rougé, Jean. Recherches sur l’organisation du commerce maritime en Méditerranée sous l’empire romain. Paris: S.E.V.P.E.N., 1966. –. “Prêt et société maritimes dans le monde romain.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 36 (1980): 291–303. Roussel, Pierre. “Les mystères de Panamara.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 51 (1927): 123–37. Rowlandson, Jane. Landowners and Tenants in Roman Egypt: The Social Relations of Agriculture in the Oxyrhynchite Nome. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. –. ed. Women and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt: A Sourcebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Rupprecht, Hans-Albert. Studien zur Quittung im Recht der graeco-ägyptischen Papyri. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1971. –. Kleine Einführung in die Papyruskunde. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1994. Russell, R. “Pauline Letter Structure in Philippians.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25.3 (1982): 295–306. Rutishauser-James, Sigrid. “‘Partnership’ or ‘Fellowship’: which, today, is truer to the biblical witness?” The Expository Times 120 (2009): 327–30. Sagovsky, Nicholas. Ecumenism, Christian Origins and the Practice of Communion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Ste. Croix, G. E. M. de. “Greek and Roman Accounting.” Pages 14–74 in Studies in the History of Accounting. Edited by A. C. Littleton and B. S. Yamey. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1956. –. “Ancient Greek and Roman Maritime Loans.” Pages 41–59 in Debits, Credits, Finance and Profits. Edited by H. Edey and B. S. Yamey. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1974. –. The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World from the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981. Saller, Richard. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

550

Bibliography

Samama, Évelyne. Les médecins dans le monde grec: Sources épigraphiques sur la naissance d’un corps médical. Genève: Droz, 2003. Sampley, J. Paul. “Societas Christi: Roman Law and Paul’s Conception of Christian Community.” Pages 158–74 in God’s Christ and His People: Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl. Edited by J. Jervell and W. A. Meeks. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977. –. Pauline Partnership in Christ: Christian Community and Commitment in Light of Roman Law. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. –., ed. Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2003. Samuel, Deborah H., ed. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology. Toronto: A. M. Hakkert, 1970. Sánchez, Pierre. “La convention judiciaire dans le traité conclu entre Rome et les Lyciens (P.Schøyen I 25).” Chiron 37 (2007): 363–81. Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81.1 (1962): 1–13. San Nicolò, Mariano. Ägyptisches Vereinswesen zur Zeit der Ptolemäer und Römer. 2 vols. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1913. Sasse, Christoph. Die Constitutio Antoniniana: Eine Untersuchung über den Umfang der Bürgerrechtsverleihung auf Grund des Papyrus Giss. 40 I. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1958. –. “Literaturübersicht zur Constitutio Antoniniana: I. Teil.” The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 14 (1962): 109–49. –. “Literaturübersicht zur Constitutio Antoniniana: II. Teil.” The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 15 (1965): 329–66. Schäfer, Christoph. “Zur Ϲφραγίϲ von Sklaven in der lex portorii provinciae Asiae.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 86 (1991): 193–98. Scheidel, Walter, Ian Morris and Richard Saller, eds. The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Schenk, Wolfgang. Die Philipperbriefe des Paulus. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1984. –. “Der Philipperbrief in der neueren Forschung (1945–1985).” ANRW 25.4:3280–3313. Part 2, Principat, 25.4. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: De Gruyter, 1987. Schepelern, Vilhelm E. Der Montanismus und die phrygischen Kulte: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1929. Schlunk, Martin. Paulus als Missionar. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1937. Schmelz, Georg. Kirchliche Amtsträger im spätantiken Ägypten. Munich: K. G. Saur, 2002. Schmidt, Johannes. “Nachträge zum Senatsbeschluss über Thisbae.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Athen. Abt.) 4 (1879): 235–49. –. “Die Senatsbeschlüsse über die Thisbäer vom Jahre 170 v. Chr.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abteilung) 2 (1881): 116–34. Schmithals, Walter. The Office of Apostle in the Early Church. Translated by J. E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon, 1969. –. “The False Teachers of the Epistle to the Philippians.” Pages 65–122 in Paul and the Gnostics. Translated by J. E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972. Repr. and rev. from “Die Irrlehrer des Philipperbriefes.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 54 (1957): 297–341. Schmitt, Rüdiger. “Review of T. B. Mitford, The Nymphaeum of Kafizin.” Gnomon 53.7 (1981): 635–41.

Secondary Literature

551

Schmoller, Gustav. “Die Handelsgesellschaften des Altertums.” Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft 16 (1892): 87–104. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Early Christian Mission: Paul and the Early Church. Vol. 2. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004. –. Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008. Schnebel, M. “An Agricultural Ledger in P. Bad. 95.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 14.1 (1928): 34–45. Scholer, David M., ed. Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E. A. Judge. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008. Schöllgen, G. “Was wissen wir über die Sozialstruktur der paulinischen Gemeinden? Kritische Anmerkungen zu einem neuen Buch von W. A. Meek.” New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 71–82. Schönbauer, Ernst. “Studien zum Personalitätsprinzip im antiken Rechte.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abteilung) 49 (1929): 345–403. –. “Rechtshistorische Urkundenstudien zum griechischen Recht im Zweistromlande: I. PG. Dura 21.” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 12 (1937): 194– 217. –. “Deditizier, Doppel-Bürgerschaft und Personalitäts-Prinzip.” The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 6 (1952): 17–72. Schoon-Janssen, Johannes. Umstrittene “Apologien” in den Paulusbriefen: Studien zur rhetorischen Situation des 1. Thessalonicherbriefes, des Galaterbriefes und des Philipperbriefes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Schottroff, Luise. “‘Nicht viele Mächtige’: Annäherungen an eine Soziologie des Urchristentums.” Pages 247–56 in Befreiungserfahrungen: Studien zur Soziageschi-chte des Neuen Testaments. Munich: C. Kaiser, 1990. Schubert, Paul. Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings. Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1939. Schuler, Christof. “Ein Priestertum der Artemis in Arykanda.” Chiron 33 (2003): 485– 504. –. “Inschriften aus dem Territorium von Myra in Lykien: Istlada.” Chiron 36 (2006): 395–451. –. “Ein Vertrag zwischen Rom und den Lykiern aus Tyberissos.” Pages 51–79 in Griechische Epigraphik in Lykien: Eine Zwischenbilanz. Edited by C. Schuler. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007. Schütz, John H. Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Schwartz, Seth. “Josephus in Galilee: Rural Patronage and Social Breakdown.” Pages 290–306 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Edited by F. Parente and J. Sievers. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994. –. Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Scott, C. Anderson. “The ‘Fellowship’ or κοινωνία.” The Expository Times 35 (1924): 567. Scroggs, Robin. “The Sociological Interpretation of the New Testament: The Present State of Research,” in New Testament Studies 26 (1980): 164–79. Seesemann, Heinrich. Der Begriff ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ im Neuen Testament. Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1933. Segre, Mario. “L’institution des Nikephoria de Pergame.” Hellenica 5 (1948): 102–28.

552

Bibliography

Seidl, Erwin. Rechtsgeschichte Ägyptens als römischer Provinz: Die Behauptung des ägyptischen Rechts neben dem römischen. Sankt Augustin: H. Richarz, 1973. Sellew, Philip. “‘Laodiceans’ and the Philippians Fragments Hypothesis.” The Harvard Theological Review 87.1 (1994): 17–28. –. “‘Laodiceans’ and Philippians Revisited: A Response to Paul Holloway.” The Harvard Theological Review 91.3 (1998): 327–29. Sevenster, J. N. Paul and Seneca. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961. –. Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known? Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968. Sidebotham, Steven E. Roman Economic Policy in the Erythra Thalassa 30 B.C.–A.D. 217. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986. Siewert, Peter. “Die wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Bedeutung der Bronze-Urkunden aus Olympia.” Pages 359–70 in Olympia 1875–2000: 125 Jahre Deutsche Ausgrabungen. Edited by H. Kyrieleis. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern, 2002. Sijpesteijn, P. J. “Some Byzantine Papyri from the Amsterdam Papyrus Collection.” Talanta 6 (1975): 37–57. –. “Receipts for χόρτου µονοδεϲµία and Other Taxes.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 87 (1991): 263–67. Sijpesteijn, P. J., and Klass A. Worp. “Some Remarks on P. Flor. I 64.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 29 (1978): 267–69. –. “A Survey of Land.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 70 (1987): 128–32. Silva, Moisés. “Bilingualism and the Character of Palestinian Greek.” Biblica 61 (1980): 198–219. –. “Biblical Greek and Modern Greek: A Review Article.” Westminster Theological Journal 67 (2005): 391–404. –. Philippians. 2nd ed. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. –. “Some Comments on Professor Caragounis’s Response.” Westminster Theological Journal 67 (2005): 417–18. Simon, Dieter. “Quasi-ΠΑΡΑΚΑΤΑΘΗΚΗ: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Morphologie griechisch-hellenistischer Schuldrechtstatbestände.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abteilung) 82 (1965): 39–66. Sirks, Boudewijn. “Supplying Rome: Safeguarding the System.” Pages 173–78 in Supplying Rome and the Empire: The Proceedings of an International Seminar held at Siena-Certosa di Pontignano on May 2–4, 2004, on Rome, the Provinces, Production and Distribution. Edited by E. Papi. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2007. Skeat, T. C. “A Letter from the King of the Blemmyes to the King of the Noubades.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 63 (1977): 159–70. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella, eds. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. The Anchor Bible 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Slater, William J. “Hadrian’s Letters to the Athletes and Dionysiac Artists concerning Arrangements for the ‘Circuit’ of Games.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 21 (2008): 610–20. Slings, S. R. “∆Ε or ∆Η in a Defixio from Olbia?” Mnemosyne 51.1 (1998): 84–85. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1906. Smit, Peter-Ben. “War Paulus Suizidal? Eine Psychiatrisch-Exegetische Notizmore.” Biblische Notizen 158 (2013): 113–18. Smith, Jonathan Z. “The Social Description of Early Christianity.” Religious Studies Review 1.1 (1975): 19–21.

Secondary Literature

553

–. Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Smith, Morton. “Pauline Problems: Apropos of J. Munck, ‘Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte’.” The Harvard Theological Review 50.2 (1957): 107–131. Smith, R. H. “Were the Early Christians Middle-Class? A Sociological Analysis of the New Testament.” Currents in Theology and Mission 7 (1980): 260–76. Snyman, A. H. “Persuasion in Philippians 4.1–20.” Pages 325–37 in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 90. Edited by S. E. Porter and T. H. Olbricht. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. –. “Philippians 4:10–23 from a Rhetorical Perspective.” Acta Theologica 27.2 (2007): 168–85. Soden, Heiko F. von. Untersuchungen zur Homologie in den griechischen Papyri Ägyptens bis Diokletian. Cologne: Bölau, 1973. Sokolowski, Franciszek. “Partnership in the Lease of Cults in Greek Antiquity.” The Harvard Theological Review 50.2 (1957): 133–43. Solin, Heikki. “Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt: Eine ethnischdemographische Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der sprachlichen Zustände.” ANRW 29.2:587–789. Part 2, Principat, 29.2. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: De Gruyter, 1983. Souter, Alexander. “Did Paul Speak Latin?” The Expositor, 8 th Series 1 (1911): 337–42. –. The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul: A Study. Oxford: Clarendon, 1927. Stählin, W. “‘Koinonia’ and Worship.” Studia Liturgica 1 (1962): 220–27. Stark, Rodney. “The Class Basis of Early Christianity: Inferences from a Sociological Model.” Sociological Analysis 47 (1986): 216–25. –. Cities of God: The Real Story of How Christianity Became an Urban Movement and Conquered Rome. New York: HarperCollins, 2006. Stegemann, Ekkehard W., and Wolfgang Stegemann. The Jesus Movement: A Social History of its First Century. Translated by O. C. Dean. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999. Steinwenter, A. “Aus dem Gesellschaftsrechte der Papyri.” Studi in onore di Salvatore Riccobono nel XL anno del suo insegnamento. Vol. 1. Edited by S. Riccobono. Palermo: G. Castiglia, 1936. Still, Todd D. “Did Paul Loathe Manual Labor? Revisiting the Work of Ronald F. Hock on the Apostle’s Tentmaking and Social Class.” Journal of Biblical Literature 125.4 (2006): 781–95. Still, Todd D., and David G. Horrell, eds. After the First Urban Christians: The SocialScientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later. London: T. & T. Clark, 2009. Stirewalt, M. Luther. Paul, The Letter Writer. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Stowers, Stanley K. “Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity.” Novum Testamentum 26.1 (1984): 59–82. –. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. –. “Social Typification and the Classification of Ancient Letters.” Pages 78–90 in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism. Edited by J. Neusner et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. –. “Friends and Enemies in the Politics of Heaven: Reading Theology in Philippians.” Pages 105–21 in Pauline Theology. Vol. 1. Edited by J. M. Bassler. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.

554

Bibliography

Straub, Werner. Die Bildersprache des Apostels Paulus. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1937. Strauss, Julia. “Shipwrecks Database, Version 1.0 (2013).” No pages. Cited 5 May 2013. Online: oxrep.classics.ox.ac.uk/databases/shipwrecks_database/. Strelan, John G. “Burden-Bearing and the Law of Christ: A Re-Examination of Galatians 6:2.” Journal of Biblical Literature 94.2 (1975): 266–76. Strelan, Rick. “The Languages of Lycus Valley.” Pages 77–103 in Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. Edited by A. H. Cadwallader and M. Trainor. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Strobel, August. Das heilige Land der Montanisten: Eine religionsgeographische Untersuchung. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980. Strubbe, Johan H. M. “Epigrams and Consolation Decrees for Deceased Youths.” L’Antiquité classique 67 (1998): 45–75. Suhl, Alfred. “Paulinische Chronologie im Streit der Meinungen.” ANRW 26.2:939–1188. Part 2, Principat, 26.2. Edited by W. Haase and H. Temporini. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995. Sukenik, Eleazar L. Ancient synagogues in Palestine and Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934. Sweetland, D. M. “Review of J. P. Sampley, Pauline Partnership in Christ.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982): 689–90. Swift, Robert C. “The Theme and Structure of Philippians.” Bibliotheca sacra 14 (1984): 234–54. Symes, J. E. “Five Epistles to the Philippians.” The Interpreter 10.2 (1914): 167–70. Syrkou, Angeliki. “Lease of Land.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 152 (2005): 200–202. Szesnat, H. “What did the ΣKHNΟΠΟΙΟΣ Paul Produce?” Neotestamentica 27.2 (1993): 391–402. Szlechter, Émile. Le contrat de société en Babylonie, en Grèce, et à Rome: Étude de droit comparé de l’Antiquité. Paris: Sirey, 1947. Tabbernee, William. “Montanist Regional Bishops: New Evidence from Ancient Inscriptions.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 1.3 (1993): 249–80. Taita, Julia. “Indovini stranieri al servizio delio stato spartano: Un’ ‘epoikia’ elea a Sparta in una nuova iscrizione da Olimpia.” Dike 4 (2001): 39–85. Taubenschlag, Raphael. “Die societas negotiationis im Rechte der Papyri.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abteilung) 52 (1932): 64–77. –. “Papyri and Parchments from the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire outside Egypt.” The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 3 (1949): 49–61. –. The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, 332 B.C.–640 A.D. 2nd rev. and enl. ed. Milan: Cisalpino-Goliardica, 1972. Täubler, Eugen. Imperium Romanum: Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Römischen Reichs. Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1913. Taylor, Bernard A., John A. L. Lee, Peter R. Burton, and Richard E. Whitaker, eds. Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Teixidor, J. “Le tarif de Palmyre: 1. Un commentaire de la version palmyrénienne.” Aula Orientalis 1 (1983): 235–52. Thayer, J. H. “Language of the New Testament.” Pages 36–43 in A Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 3. Edited by J. Hastings. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902.

Secondary Literature

555

Theissen, Gerd. “Soziale Schichtung in der korinthischen Gemeinde: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie des hellenistischen Urchristentums.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 65 (1974): 232–72. –. “Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie Urchristlicher Missionare.” New Testament Studies 21 (1975): 192–221. –. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Translated and edited by J. H. Schütz. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982. –. “The Social Structure of Pauline Communities: Some Critical Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24 (2001): 65–84. –. “Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community: Further Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (2003): 371–91. Thémélis, Pétros, and Dominique Mulliez. “Un acte d’affranchissement inédit du Trésor de Cnide.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 113 (1989): 343–46. Theodore of Mopsuestia. Theodori episcopi Mopsuesteni in epistolas B. Pauli commentarii: The Latin version with the Greek Fragments. 2 vols. Edited by H. B. Swete. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1880. Repr., Westmead: Gregg International, 1969. –. The Commentaries on the Minor Epistles of Paul. Translated by R. A. Greer. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Theodoridis, Christos. “Die ΟΡΟΙ ΕΝΝΑΙΑϹ der Inschriften SEG 19,181.182 und Photius E 989.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 60 (1985): 51–52. Thielman, Frank S. “Ephesus and the Literary Setting of Philippians.” Pages 205–23 in New Testament Greek and Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Gerald F. Hawthorne. Edited by A. M. Donaldson and T. B. Sailors. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Thilo, Ralf Michael. Der Codex accepti et expensi im Römischen Recht: Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von der Litteralobligation. Göttingen: Muster-Schmidt, 1980. Thomas, J. A. C. “Solutio societatis ex actione and dissensus sociorum.” Tulane Law Review 48 (1974): 1099–1110. Thomas, J. David. “The Disappearance of the Dekaprotoi in Egypt.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 11.2–4 (1974): 60–68. Thornton, L. S. The Common Life in the Body of Christ. 3rd ed. London: Dacre, 1950. Thraede, Klaus. Grundzüge griechische-römischer Brieftopik. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1970. Thrall, Margaret E. Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and Exegetical Studies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962. Thumb, Albert. Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Beurteilung der KOINH . Strassburg: Trübner, 1901. –. “Prinzipienfragen der Koine-Forschung.” Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische altertum Geschichte und deutsche Literatur 17 (1906): 246–63. Thür, Gerhard. “Bemerkungen zum altgriechischen Werkvertrag (die Bauvergabeordnung aus Tegea, IG V/2, 6A).” Pages 471–514 in Studi in onore di Arnaldo Biscardi. Vol. 5. Milan: Cisalpino-La Goliardica, 1984. Thurston, Bonnie B., and Judith M. Ryan. Philippians and Philemon. Sacra Pagina 10. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2009. Tischendorf, Konstantin. Codex Claromontanus sive epistulae Pauli omnes Graece et Latine (...). Lipsia: Brockhaus, 1852. –. Novum Testamentum Graece: Ad antiquissimos testes denuo recensuit, apparatum criticum omni studio perfectum. Vol. 2. Lipsia: Giesecke & Devrient, 1872. Toner, Jerry. Popular Culture in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Polity, 2009.

556

Bibliography

Touloumakos, J. “Bilingue [Griechisch-Lateinische] Weihinschriften der römischen Zeit.” Tekmeira 1 (1995): 79–129. Townsend, John T. “Missionary Journeys in Acts and European Missionary Societies.” Anglican Theological Review 68 (1986): 99–104. Tran, Nicolas. Les membres des associations romaines: Le rang social des collegiati en Italie et en Gaule sous le haut empire. Rome: École Française de Rome, 2006. –. Dominus tabernae: Le statut de travail des artisans et des commerçants de l’Occident romain (Ier siècle av. J.-C.–IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.). Rome: École Française de Rome, 2013. Trebilco, Paul R. Jewish Communities in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Triantaphyllopoulos, Jean. “Le droit romain dans le monde grec.” The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 21 (1991): 75–85. Troeltsch, Ernst. The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches. Vol. 1. Translated by O. Wyon. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960. Translation of Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen. Vol. 1. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1912. Turner, E. G. “Egypt and the Roman Empire: The ∆EKAΠPΩTOI.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 22.1 (1936): 7–19. Turner, Nigel. Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965. –. “Jewish and Christian Influence on New Testament Vocabulary.” Novum Testamentum 16.2 (1974): 149–60. Vanderpool, Eugene. “News Letter from Greece.” American Journal of Archaeology 65.3 (1961): 299–303. Vandorpe, Katelijn, and Willy Clarysse. “A Greek Winery for Sale in a Fayum Demotic Papyrus.” Pages 127–39 in The Two-Faces of Graeco-Roman Egypt: Greek and Demotic and Greek-Demotic Texts and Studies Presented to P. W. Pestman. Edited by A. M. F. W. Verhoogt and S. P. Vleeming. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Van Effenterre, Henri. “Nouvelles inscriptions archaïques de la Crète centrale.” Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 129.1 (1985): 247–57. Van Effenterre, Micheline, and Henri Van Effenterre. “Nouvelles lois archaïques de Lyttos.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 109.1 (1985): 157–88. Van Engen, Charles. “Essay 1: ‘Mission’ Defined and Described.” Pages 7–29 in Global Mission Issues in the Third Millenium. Edited by D. J. Hesselgrave and E. Stetzer. Nashville: B. & H. Academic, 2010. Vasseur, Michel, and Xavier Marin. Les comptes en banque. Paris: Sirey, 1966. Verboven, Koenraad. The Economy of Friends: Economic Aspects of Amicitia and Patronage in the Late Republic. Bruxelles: Latomus, 2002. Verboven, K., K. Vandorpe, and V. Chankowski, eds. Pistoi dia tèn technèn: Bankers, Loans and Archives in the Ancient World. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Veyne, Paul. “Vie de Trimalcion.” Annales 16.2 (1961): 213–47. –. Le pain et le cirque: Sociologie historique d’un pluralisme politique. Paris: Seuil, 1976. –. “La ‘plèbe moyenne’ sous le Haut-Empire romain.” Annales 55.6 (2000): 1169–99. Vielhauer, Philipp. Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen une die Apostolischen Väter. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1975.

Secondary Literature

557

Vincent, Marvin R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897. Visscher, Fernand de. Le droit des tombeaux romains. Milan: Giuffrè, 1963. Voelz, James W. “The Language of the New Testament.” ANRW 25.2:893–977. Part 2, Principat, 25.2. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: De Gruyter, 1989. Vokes, F. E. “Montanism and the Ministry.” Studia patristica 9 (1966): 306–15. Vollgraff, Wilhelm. “Remarques sur une inscription de Tégée.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 70 (1946): 617–27. Völter, Daniel. “Zwei Briefe an die Philipper.” Theologisch Tijdschrift 26 (1892): 10–44, 117–46. Vos, Craig S. de. Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Philippian Churches with their Wider Civic Communities. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Waaser, Max. Die colonia partiaria des römischen Rechts. Berlin: Hermann, 1885. Wachtel, Klaus, and Klaus Witte, eds. Die Paulinischen Briefe: Teil 2. Vol. 2 of Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994. Wagner, J., and G. Petzl. “Relief- und Inschriftfragmente des kommagenischen Herrscherkultes aus Ancoz.” Pages 85–96 in Neue Forschungen zur Religionsgeschichte Kleinasiens: Elmar Schwertheim zum 60. Asia Minor Studien 49. Edited by E. Schwertheim, G. Heedemann, and E. Winter. Bonn: Habelt, 2003. Waldmann, Helmut. Die kommagenischen Kultreformen unter König Mithradates I Kallinikos und seinem Sohne Antiochos I. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973. Wallace, Sherman L. Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian. New York: Greenwood, 1969. Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew, ed. Patronage in Ancient Society. London: Routledge, 1989. –. Rome’s Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. –. “Trying to Define and Identify the Roman ‘Middle Classes’.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 26 (2013): 605–609. Walter, Nikolaus. “Die Philipper und das Leiden: Aus den Anfangen einer heidenchristlichen Gemeinden.” Pages 417–34 in Die Kirche des Anfangs: Für Heinz Schumann. Edited by R. Schnackenburg et al. Freiburg: Herder, 1978. Walton, Steve. Leadership and Lifestyle: The Portrait of Paul in the Miletus Speech and 1 Thessalonians. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. –. “Paul, Patronage and Pay: What Do We Know about the Apostle’s Financial Support.” Pages 220–33 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology and Practice. Edited by T. J. Burke and B. S. Rosner. London: T. & T. Clark International, 2011. Waltzing, Jean-Pierre. Étude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains: Depuis les origines jusqu’à la chute de l’Empire d’Occident. 4 vols. Louvain: Peeters, 1895–1900. Repr. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1970. Wansink, Craig S. Chained in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul’s Imprisonments. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Ware, James P. The Mission of the Church in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the context of Ancient Judaism. Novum Testamentum Supplements 120. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Warneck, J. Paulus im Lichte der heutigen Heidenmission. Berlin: M. Warneck, 1913. Waszynski, Stefan. Die Bodenpacht: Agrargeschichtliche Papyrus Studien. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1905. Watson, Alan. “Consensual societas between Romans and the Introduction of formulae.” Revue internationale des droits de l’Antiquité 9 (1962): 431–36.

558

Bibliography

–. The Law of Obligations in the Later Roman Republic. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. –. Law Making in the Later Roman Republic. Oxford: Clarendon, 1974. –. Legal Transplants: An Approach to Comparative Law. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1974. –. Society and Legal Change. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1977. –. “Society’s Choice and Legal Chance.” Hofstra Law Review 9.5 (1981): 1473–84. –. “The Evolution of Law: The Roman System of Contracts.” Law and History Review 2.1 (1984): 1–20. –. Studies in Roman Private Law. London: Hambledon, 1991. –. “Prolegomena to Establishing Pre-Justinianic Texts.” Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 62.2 (1994): 113–26. –. The Spirit of Roman Law. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1995. –. “Law Out of Context.” Edinburgh Law Review 4.2 (2000): 147–67. Watson, Duane F. “A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians and Its Implications for the Unity Question.” Novum Testamentum 30.1 (1988): 57–88. –. “The Integration of Epistolary and Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians.” Pages 398–426 in The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 146. Edited by S. Porter and T. Olbricht. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. –. “A Reexamination of the Epistolary Analysis Underpinning the Arguments for the Composite Nature of Philippians.” Pages 157–77 in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Novum Testamentum Supplements 110. Edited by J. T. Fitzgerald, T. H. Olbricht and L. M. White. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Weaver, P. R. C. Familia Caesaris: A Social Study of the Emperor’s Freedmen and Slaves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Wegener, E. P. “Four Papyri of the Bodleian Library.” Mnemosyne 3.3 (1936): 232–40. –. “Some Oxford Papyri.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 23.2 (1937): 204–25. Weinel, Heinrich. St. Paul, the Man and His Work. Translated by G. A. Bienemann. London: Williams and Norgate, 1906. Weiss, Egon. “Communio pro diviso und pro indiviso in den Papyri.” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 4 (1908): 330–65. –. Griechisches Privatrecht auf rechtsvergleichender Gundlage. Vol. 1. Leipzig: F. Meiner, 1923. Weiss, Johannes. Das Urchristentum. Edited by R. Knopf. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917. Welborn, L. L. Paul, the Fool of Christ: A Study of 1 Corinthians 1–4 in the Comic-philosophic Tradition. London: T. & T. Clark International, 2005. –. “Paul’s Caricature of his Chief Rival as a Pompous Parasite in 2 Corinthians 11:20.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.1 (2009): 39–56. –. An End to Enmity: Paul and the “Wrongdoer” of Second Corinthians. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011. –. “‘That There May Be Equality’: The Contexts and Consequences of a Pauline Ideal.” New Testament Studies 59.1 (2013): 73–90. Welles, C. Bradford. “Dura Pergament 21: Hypothek und Exekution am Euphratufer im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abteilung) 56 (1936): 99–135. Wenger, Leopold. Institutes of the Roman Law of Civil Procedure. Rev. ed. Translated by O. Harrison Fisk. Littleton: F. B. Rothman, 1986.

Secondary Literature

559

Wessely, C. “Rezensionen und Anzeigen.” Wochenschrift für klassische Philologie 30/31 (1913): 817–20. Westbrook, Raymond. “Patronage in the Ancient Near East.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 48 (2005): 210–33. Westermann, William L. “Warehousing and Trapezite Banking in Antiquity.” Journal of Economic and Business History 3 (1931): 30–54. –. The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1955. Wette, W. M. L., de. Kurze Erklärung der Briefe an die Colosser, an Philemon, an die Epheser und Philipper. Leipzig: Weidmann, 1843. Wettstein, Johann J. Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ∆ΙΑΘΗΚΗ Novum Testamentum Graecum. 2 vols. Amsterdam: Ex officina Dommeriana, 1752. Wick, Peter. Der Philipperbrief: Der formale Aufbau des Briefs als Schlüssel zum Verständnis seines Inhalts. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1994. Wilcken, Ulrich. Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient, 1899. Repr., Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1970. –. “IX. P. Straßb. II (s. oben S. 68).” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 7 (1924): 87–93. Wilhelm, Adolf. “Remarques sur deux inscriptions de Delphes.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 24 (1900): 216–21. –. “Zu Griechischen Epigrammen.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 29 (1905): 405–16. –. “Zum griechischen Wortschatz.” Glotta 14.1 (1925): 68–84. Williams, Craig A. Reading Roman Friendship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Williams, David J. Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999. Williams, Margaret H. “The Meaning and Function of Ioudaios in Graeco-Roman Inscriptions.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 116 (1997): 249–62. Williams, W. “Formal and Historical Aspects of Two New Documents of Marcus Aurelius.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 17 (1975): 37–78. Windisch, Hans. Der zweite Korintherbrief. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 6. 9th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924. Winter, Bruce W., ed. The Book of Acts in its First-Century Setting. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993–1996. –. Philo and Paul among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a JulioClaudian Movement. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. –. Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Winter, John G. “In the Service of Rome: Letters from the Michigan Collection of Papyri.” Classical Philology 22.3 (1927): 237–56. –. Life and Letters in the Papyri. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1933. Wipszycka, Ewa. “Il vescovo et il suo clero: A proposito di CPR V 11.” The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 22 (1992): 67–81. Wire, Antoinette C. “Review of J. P. Sampley, Pauline Partnership in Christ.” Journal of Biblical Literature 101.3 (1982): 468–69. Witherington III, Ben. Friendship and Finances in Philippi: The Letter of Paul to the Philippians. Valley Forge: Trinity International, 1994. –. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.

560

Bibliography

White, John L. “New Testament Epistolary Literature in the Framework of Ancient Epistolography.” ANRW 25.2:1730–56. Part 2, Principat, 25.2. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984. –. Light from Ancient Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. –. “Ancient Greek Letters.” Pages 85–105 in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms and Genres. Edited by D. E. Aune. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. White, John L., and Keith A. Kensinger. “Categories of Greek Papyrus Letters.” Pages 79–91 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1976. Edited by G. MacRae. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. White, L. Michael. “Sociological Analysis of Early Christian Groups: A Social Historian’s Response.” Sociological Analysis 47 (1986): 249–66. –. “Social Authority in the House Church Setting and Ephesians 4:1–16.” Restoration Quarterly 29 (1987): 209–27. –. “Morality between Two Worlds: A Paradigm of Friendship in Philippians.” Pages 201–15 in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by D. L. Balch, E. Ferguson, and W. A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. –. “Synagogue and Society in Imperial Ostia: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence.” The Harvard Theological Review 90.1 (1997): 23–58. White, L. Michael, and John T. Fitzgerald. “Quod est comparandum: The Problem of Parallels.” Pages 13–39 in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Novum Testamentum Supplements 110. Edited by J. T. Fitzgerald, T. H. Olbricht, and L. M. White. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Whittaker, Dick. “Le commerce romain avec l’Inde et la prise de décision économique.” Topoi 10 (2000): 267–88. Wolf, Joseph G. “From the Recent Discovery of Documents in Pompeii: The tabellae of Titinia Antracis and the Suretyship of Epichares.” Roman Legal Tradition 2 (2004): 82–95. Wolff, Hans J. “Consensual Contract in the Papyri.” The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 1 (1946): 55–79. –. Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Ägyptens in der Zeit der Ptolemäer und des Prinzipats. Vol. 2. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1978. –. “Römisches Provinzialrecht in der Provinz Arabia (Rechtspolitik als Instrument der Beherrschung).” ANRW 13:763–807. Part 2, Principat, 13. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980. Wolff, Hartmut. Die Constitutio Antoniniana und Papyrus Gissensis 40 I: Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der philosophischen Fakultät der Universität zu Köln. Cologne: Universität zu Köln, 1976. Wood, William S. “Fellowship.” The Expositor, 8th Series 21 (1921): 31–40. Worp, Klass A. “P.Bad. II 26, 23, 30 und P.Berl.Zill. 3, 5.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 118 (1997): 243–44. –. “P.Flor. 1.64: A Re-edition.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 45 (2008): 261–75. –. A New Survey of Greek, Coptic, Demotic and Latin Tabulae Preserved from Classical Antiquity. TOP 6. Leiden: Trismegistos Online Publications, 2012. Yiftach-Firanko, Uri. “Judaean Desert Marriage Documents and Ekdosis in the Greek Law of the Roman Period.” Pages 67–84 in Law in the Documents of the Judaean Desert. Edited by R. Katzoff and D. Schaps. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 96. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Secondary Literature

561

–. “Regionalism and Legal Documents: The Case of Oxyrhynchos.” Pages 347–65 in Symposion 2003: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Rauischholzhausen, 30. September–3. Oktober 2003). Edited by H.-A. Rupprecht. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2006. –. “The Cheirographon and the Privatization of Scribal Activity in Early Roman Oxyrhynchos.” Pages 325–40 in Symposion 2007: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Durham, 2.–6. September 2007). Edited by E. Harris and G. Thür. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008. Youtie, Herbert C. “P.Rendel Harris 93.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 21 (1976): 202. Repr. page 316 in Scriptiunculae Posteriores. Vol. 1. Bonn: R. Habelt, 1981. –. “P.Mich.Inv. 148, Verso: The Rule of Precedent.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 27 (1977): 124–37. –. Scriptiunculae Posteriores. Vol. 1. Bonn: R. Habelt, 1981. Zahn, Theodor. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Deichert, 1900. Zaki, Aly. “Sitologia in Roman Egypt.” The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 4 (1950): 289–307. Zgusta, Ladislav. “Die Rolle des Griechischen im römischen Kaiserreich.” Pages 121–45 in Die Sprachen im römischen Reich der Kaiserzeit: Kolloquium vom 8. bis 10. April 1974. Cologne: Habelt, 1980. Ziebarth, Erich. Das griechische Vereinswesen. Leipzig: S. Hirzei, 1896. Repr., Wiesbaden: M. Sändig, 1969. Ziemann, Ferdinand. De epistularum Graecarum formulis sollemnibus quaestiones selectae. Halle: Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 1912. Zilliacus, Henrik. “Griechische Papyrusurkunden des VII. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.” Eranos 38 (1940): 79–107. Zimmermann, Carola. Handwerkervereine im griechischen Osten des Imperium Romanum. Mainz: Römisch-germanisches Zentralmuseum, 2002. Zimmermann, Reinhard. The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. Cape Town: Juta, 1990. Zmijewski, Josef. Der Stil der paulinischen “Narrenrede”: Analyse der Sprachgestaltung in 2 Kor 11, 1–12, 10 als Beitrag zur Methodik von Stiluntersuchungen neutestamentlicher Texte. Cologne: P. Hanstein, 1978. Zolotas, Georgios. “A Epistole Basileos Alexandrou tou Philipppou.” Athena 5 (1893): 7–33. Zubar, Vitalij M. “The North Pontic Area and Septimius Severus.” Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 2 (1995): 182–95. Zuckerman, Constantin. Du village à l’Empire: autour du registre fiscal d’Aphroditô (525/526). Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2004. Zulueta, Francis de. “The New Fragments of Gaius (PSI 1182).” The Journal of Roman Studies 24 (1934): 168–86. –. “The New Fragments of Gaius, Part II: Societas Ercto Non Cito.” The Journal of Roman Studies 25 (1935): 19–32. –., ed. The Institutes of Gaius. Part 2: Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1953.

Index of Ancient Sources A. Apocrypha and Septuagint Genesis 25:6 47:22

71 71, 85

Esther 8:7

293

Ecclesiastes 3:13

71

Leviticus 6:2 7:30 23:38

124, 143 71 71

Ezekiel 20:31

71

Numbers 18:6 28:2

71 70

Daniel 2:6 2:48

71 71

1 Samuel 18:25 20:1

71 293

Hosea 10:6

71

1 Maccabees 3:30 10:24 10:28 10:54

71 71 71 71

2 Maccabees 6:23

9

Sirach 41:19d 42:7

37, 82, 93 37, 82, 93

1 Kings 13:7

71

2 Chronicles 17:11 32:3

71 71

Proverbs 15:27 15:29 18:16 19:17

82 (n. 92) 82 71 71

B. New Testament Matthew 23:30

133

Luke 4:42 5:2–11 5:7

293 346 122

564

Index of Ancient Sources

5:10

126, 197

Acts 4:34–5:2 12:19 16:14–15 16:16–24 18:3 19:23–41 20:34–35 20:38 21:5

346 293 8 345 3, 346 345 4 9 9

Romans 1:9–10 1:13 2:7 5:15 6:21–22 9:31 11:7 12:16 15:5–6 15:19 15:23 15:24 15:23–24 15:26–27 15:28 16:1–2 16:17 16:23

248 76, 296 292 261 296 293 293 24 24 1 1 9 230 219 76, 296 3, 8 229 3, 8

1 Corinthians 1:4 1:9 1:22 4:2 4:12 5:3 6 6:1–8 7:1–17 7:27 7:29 9 9–10 9:4 9:5–6 9:6

248 259 292 230, 292 3, 4 236 346 312 346 292 230 6, 13–14 136 5 7 3, 4

9:7 9:8–13 9:8–14 9:10–12 9:12 9:14 9:15 9:16–17 9:18 10:16 15:58–16:1 16:2 16:6 16:11

76, 296 297 9 137 3, 11 9 3 341 3 147, 259 229 291 9 9

2 Corinthians 1:16 2:17 4:7 6:14 8:1–2 8:3 8:4 8:5 8:18–25 8:20–21 8:23 9:3–4 9:8–13 9:13 9:18 10:15 11:7–9 11:8 11:8–9 11:23–27 11:27 12:7–10 12:9 12:13 12:14 12:16 12:16–17 12: 17 13:13

9 11, 288 268 136, 259 268 290 219, 258 290 290 288 126 290 297 219, 258 3 2 2, 3, 6, 8, 10–11 5 2, 10, 290 268 3, 4 268 268 5 11 13, 346 13 288 168, 259, 261

Galatians 2:9 3:1

21, 124, 127, 130, 148, 219, 258, 338 229

Index of Ancient Sources 4:21 5:22 6 6:6 6:17 Philippians 1:1–3:1/1a 1:3 1:3–4 1:3–5 1:3–11 1:4 1:5

1:5–7 1:6 1:7 1:9–11 1:10–11 1:11 1:12 1:12–14 1:12–18 1:13–18 1:15–17 1:18–19 1:19–26 1:21–26 1:22 1:25 1:27 1:27–28 1:27–2:18 2:1 2:1–11 2:1–18 2:2 2:5–11 2:6–11 2:12–13 2:17 2:17–18 2:18 2:19–20 2:19–30 2:21

229 76, 296 6, 10 9 230

226 248ff, 264, 268 247ff 14, 266 231ff, 246ff 231, 247 21, 124, 128, 129–130, 139, 231, 248ff, 251ff, 260, 264, 281, 299, 311ff, 339, 341 15 247, 251, 265 122, 134, 138, 231, 259 260ff, 311 247 265 76, 264, 296 246, 264ff, 299, 341 226 264, 299, 347 299 343 231 244, 311 268 264, 344 264 228, 231 229, 231 228, 264, 266 168, 231 231 238 231 231 238 251 244, 264, 268 231 228, 230 231 228 292

2:25 2:25ff 2:25–30 2:26 2:28 2:29 3:1 3:1b/2–4:1/3 3:1–11 3:1–4:9 3:10 3:2–4:1/3 3:15 3:15–21 3:16 3:20 4 4:1 4:2 4:2/4–7/9 4:2–9 4:4 4:8 4:10 4:10–14 4:10–20

4:11 4:11–13 4:12 4:14 4:14–15 4:15

4:15–16 4:15–18 4:15–19/20

4:16 4:16–17

565 8, 290 3, 8 225, 228, 230, 234, 344 226, 233 230 230 224–225, 228–231 227 231 266 231, 258, 264 225, 228, 229, 230 231 231 231 278 6 13, 231 24, 231 226 226 224, 228, 230 225, 230 231, 250, 266–268, 291, 340 266ff 2, 7, 16, 23, 28, 29, 50, 75, 104, 112, 225–226, 231–232, 246, 265ff, 315 3 231, 268, 299 303 128, 226, 263, 269, 282 231 15, 17, 19–20, 41–42, 93, 96, 99, 101, 103, 123, 126, 138–140, 222, 259, 269, 270ff, 281, 298, 300, 311, 314, 339, 342, 347 3, 8, 14, 280 298 15, 36, 40, 49, 51, 259, 265ff, 278, 308, 342, 349 14, 17, 270, 339–340, 342 290ff

566 4:17

Index of Ancient Sources

4:19 4:21–23

76, 78, 281, 290ff, 300, 343 8, 15, 17, 21, 113, 116, 118, 222, 225, 267, 281, 300ff, 342, 347 42, 300 226

Philemon 4 6 13 15–20 17 18–19 22

248 258 290 349 22, 258 36 8

1 Thessalonians 1:2 2:5 2:7 2:7–9 2:9 2:17 3:9 4:1 4:10–12

248 11, 288 7 4, 13 3 236 7, 248 230 13

Titus 3:13

9

Hebrews 5:13 7:13 10:13

137 137 230

1 Peter 5:1

168

3 John 1:6

9

85 76

168

4:18

2 Thessalonians 3:1 230 3:7–12 13 3:9 9 Ephesians 1:16

248

James 1:17 3:18

Colossians 2:5

236

Revelation 1:9

C. Early Church Fathers Jerome Epist. 41.3

169, 373–374

Justin Martyr 1 Apol. 67

287 (n. 214)

Mart. Pol. 6:2 17:3

168 168

Polycarp Phil. 3:2 11:3

225, 227 228

Shepherd of Hermas Mand. 5.2.2 82, 94 Tertullian Apol. 39

287 (n. 214)

567

Index of Ancient Sources

D. Other Greek and Roman Literary Sources Aesop Fabulae 154 181 203 Aristotle Eth. eud. 7.2.13 7.2.14

210 211–212 211

242 243

Eth. nic. 2.7.4 4.1.1 4.1.7–8 4.1.24 4.1.29 4.1.38 4.4.2 8.3.6 8.9.1 8.14.1 9.1.5–7

95 95 95 95 95 95 95 242 39 39, 243 11

1132b 31 1133a 17 1133b 15–17 1159b 29 1160a 9 1160a 16 1160a 17 1161b 11 1163a 31 1164b 15 1241b 27

136 136 136 132 132 132 132 132 135 135–136 132

Pol. 1275a 10 1276b 1280b 22 1328a 26 1328b 6–24

135 123 135 133 135

Top. 125a 18

69

Artemidorus Daldianus Onir. 1.42 94 (n. 183) Ausonius Grat. 5

20 (n. 104), 275 (n. 153)

Caesar Bell. civ. 3.107

219

Callimachus Epigr. 55

105 (n. 236)

Cato Agr. 136

178

Chrysostom, Dio Or. 34.21–23 45 (n. 259) 44 279 46 279 Chrysostom, John Hom. Phil. 15 PG 62.184 222, 254–255 PG 62.185 255 PG 62.291 77, 96, 222, 295 PG 62.292 301 Cicero Amic. 16.58

222, 270, 274, 277, 302

Att. 1.5.7 1.13.1 12.24 12.27 12.32 15.29 16.16a

179 232–233 288 288 288 210 179

568 De or. 2.68 47.158

Fam. 3.5.4 4.3 4.5 4.12 13.9 13.28 16.5.2 16.6.2 Font. 2 2.3

Off. 1.18.59 1.48

Index of Ancient Sources

219 103 (n. 230), 275 (n. 153)

288 36 (n. 199) 36 (n. 199) 36 (n. 199) 164 36 232 232

289 103 (n. 230), 275 (n. 153)

275 (n. 152) 69

2.5 2.6–7 3.8 10.27–12.37

22, 27, 337 103 (n. 230), 275 (n. 153) 283 102, 103 (n. 230), 275 (n. 153) 103 (n. 230) 285 102, 285 342

Quinct. 3.12 4.26

27, 337 342 335

Quint. fratr. 3.1.23

227 (n. 25)

Top. 28

322

Rosc. com. 1.2 1.3–2.8 1.4

Verr. 2.1.143 2.2.74–76 2.2.76

156 285 19, 103 (n. 230), 275 (n. 153), 287, 289

2.23.60

102

Cod. justi. 1.5.20.3 3.24.2

373–374 203

Cod. theod. 5.16.34

168

Demosthenes Or. 9.28 18.309 29.36 32 32.7 32.15 32.17 32.21 34 34.8 34.28–29 34.41 35 35.16 37 37.3 37.10 37.38 40.58 42 43 56 56.5 56.7 56.9 56.10 56.24 56.42 56.45

172 78 187 134 159 159 159 159 134 159 159 159 134 159 134 159 135 156, 183 165 134 134 134 159 159 159 159 159 159 159

Diodorus Siculus 1.74.7 184 29.17.1 84 (n. 103) 38/39.7 82 Epictetus Diatr. 2.9.12

96 (n. 186)

569

Index of Ancient Sources Gaius Inst. 1.1–7 3.135–136 3.137 3.148 3.149 3.149–150 3.150 3.151 3.151–153 3.152 3.154 3.154a–b 3.154b

322 332, 333 332 330, 337–338 342–343 335–336 186 334, 340 334 195 325 25, 217, 330 205, 330

Herodotus Hist. 1.61 3.144

84 (n. 103) 210

Isaeus Or. 4.26 5.29

135 75

C. Iulius Victor Ars rhetorica 3.1 103 (n. 230), 275 (n. 153) Josephus A.J. 12:32–33

85

Justinian Const. Deo

22

Dig. 1.2.43–44 2.13.6.3 2.14.25 pr. 2.14.27 pr. 2.14.47.1 3.4.1.1 4.8.34 8.4.6.1 10.2.25.16 10.3.1 12.6.67.2

35 102 337 337 102, 275 (n. 153) 289, 337 337 203 204 204 110

17.2.1 pr 17.2.1.1 17.2.3.1 17.2.4 pr. 17.2.4.1 17.2.5 17.2.5 pr. 17.2.5–6 17.2.7 17.2.12 17.2.16 pr. 17.2.17.2 17.2.24 17.2.27 17.2.29 pr. 17.2.29.1 17.2.31 17.2.44 17.2.45 17.2.47–49 17.2.52.2 17.2.52.2–3 17.2.52.4 17.2.52.6 17.2.52.7 17.2.52.12–13 17.2.52.15 17.2.58.3 17.2.58 pr.–1 17.2.59 pr. 17.2.63 pr. 17.2.63.8 17.2.63.10 17.2.65 pr. 17.2.65.8 17.2.65.9 17.2.65.10 17.2.65.11 17.2.67 pr. 17.2.71 17.2.80 17.2.82 19.2.25.6 19.5.17.3 21.1.44.1 46.4.19 47.2.27

334 19, 204, 338 336 290, 333 334 336 330, 337 342 17, 19, 337 287, 289 337 334 346 335, 337 335 343 218, 332–333 330 346 335 178, 202 336 330 330 336, 342 337 337 346 336 195 26 195 334–335 334–335 334 195 340 195 337 333 343 289, 337 201–202 203 330 110 110

570

Index of Ancient Sources

Inst. 1.2 3.25 3.25 pr. 3.25.1 3.25.2 3.25.4 3.25.4–5 3.25.5 3.25.6 3.25.9

322 330 337, 338 335 336 299, 334, 343 334 336 337 335

Lex Rhodia 3.9 3.17 3.21 3.27 3.32

215 215 215 215 215

Livy 43.16.2

156

Lucian Hermot. 59

11

Merc. cond.

279

Peregr. 12–13

8

Petronius Satyr. 76

Polybius Hist. 6.17.4

156, 183

Plato [Alc.] 1.123a

82

[Def.] 415b 415d

70 70

Gorg. 520

11

Leg. 632b 768b 861e

136 157 (n. 33) 136

Resp. 333a–c 343d 362b 369c

135 135–136, 143 135 122

Plautus Most. 1.3.304

Pseud. 626

276 (n. 155), 303 (n. 297)

103 (n. 230), 276

214 Truc. 70

Philo Cher. 1:84

85

748

Leg. 3:26 3:64

85 85

Pliny Ep. 9.37

202

Plutarch Cat. Maj. 21.6

212, 345

Cat. Min. 17.2

85 (n. 105)

Spec. 4:195 Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 1:13

85

11

103 (n. 230), 275 (n. 153) 103 (n. 230), 275 (n. 153)

571

Index of Ancient Sources 18.1 18.3–4

84 (n. 104) 84

Gen. Socr. 584C

82

Mor. 182e 531 814c

70 70 279

Valerius Maximus 3.7.1e 103 (n. 230), 275 (n. 153) Seneca Ben. 3.1.1 4.32.4

Lucil. 81.18 Vit. beat. 23.5

69 103 (n. 230), 275 (n. 153)

Velius Longus De ortho. p. 60, l. 13 103 (n. 230), 275 (n. 153) Vettius Valens antho. 1.1.115 1.5.27 1.20.226 2.20.4 4.4.10 4.4.39 4.4.41 4.11.148 4.17.25 4.20.41 4.23.48 4.24.45

95 95 (n. 184) 95 (n. 184) 96 (n. 187) 95 94, 96 (n. 187) 94 95 (n. 184) 95 (n. 184) 95 (n. 184) 95 (n. 184) 95 (n. 184)

222, 302

App. ad antho. 1.1.89 93 (n. 175) 1.6.4 93 (n. 175)

103 (n. 230), 275 (n. 153)

Xenophon Anab. 1.9.7

210

Rhet. Her. 2.13.19

337

Cyr. 1.1.2 4.2.21

75, 78 122

Suetonius Cal. 41.1

322

Mem. 2.6.23

135

Thucydides Hist. 1.137.3 1.143.2 4.99

84 84 210

E. Documentary Sources AE 2006 [2009] 1403 362 Agora 16.161

388

BGU I 75 I 287 II 530 II 586

466 460 192, 404 475

572 III 749 III 969 III 974 III 976 IV 1024 IV 1027 IV 1051 IV 1052 IV 1055 IV 1062 IV 1099 IV 1100 IV 1123 IV 1146 IV 1151 IV 1151 2.V VI 1282 XI 2067 XII 2157 XII 2158 XII 2164 XII 2172 XII 2174 XIII 2298 XVI 2607 XVI 2625 XVII 2684 XVII 2698 XVII 2707 XIX 2762 V XIX 2807 XIX 2808 XIX 2814 XIX 2815 XIX 2817 XIX 2822 Boethius ABSA 25 408–15

Index of Ancient Sources 450 141, 185, 392 190, 444 407 396 83 461 462 113 416 461 462 191, 402 88 114 88 325 411 479 480 480 480 481 414 114 459 205, 486 88 461 393 498 484 494 496 451 483

378

C.Pap.Hengstl I1 I 46

404 325

C.Pap.Jud. II 444 III 513

393 490

CCET 34

372

CEG 2.577

355

Ch.L.A IV 256 XLI 1202 XLI 1205 XLI 1206 XXV 778

471 474 471 471 473

CIG 2691e 3419 3916 4040 5960

354 118 141, 364 171, 380 388

CIL III, p. 950 III 2, p. 953 III 447 III 7149 III 14184.9 XV 3730 XV 3881 XV 3882

325, 333 (n. 136) 81 (n. 86), 285 (n. 201) 161, 369 163, 371 387 331 (n. 120) 331 (n. 120) 331 (n. 120)

CPR V 11 VI 5 VII 15 XVIIA 9b XVIIA 15

199, 478 437 437 197, 433 434

FD 3.1.294 3.4.302

375 361

FIRA2 1.31 3.22 3.23 3.52 3.67 3.149 3.151 3.157

379 489 489 479 489 472 435 327

573

Index of Ancient Sources 3.158 3.181 3.187

454 469 433

2.62 2.102 4.152

90 111 152, 361

Fontes 37

379

IDidyma 159 488

385 80

GDI 1.1614 2.2561 3.3634

357 353 355

IEph 1a. 4 2245

155–157, 355 160, 370

GVI 1706

355

IG I3 365 I3 369 II2 1097 II² 1110 II2 1272 II² 2491 II² 2502 II² 3299 II² 11974 V 2.3 V 2.6 VII 2225 VII 2712 VII 3171 VII 4151 IX 1.32 IX 1.694 X 2.1.259 XII 9.191 XII 9.899 XII 12.1032 XII Sup 116 XIV.102

87, 90 90 92 362 91 158 158, 368 167, 371 355 73 159, 367 175–181, 379 118 110 118 358 91 92 159, 368 360 92 359 388

IGBulg 1.79 bis 2.659

167, 372 172, 383

IGerasa 75–77

118

IGLSyr 1.51 2.661 4.1977

153, 360 153, 360 165, 373

Hagel and Tomaschitz Repertorium Ada 3a 366 Herrmann-Malay Lydia 52 388 IAphrodArchive 18 172, 383 21 182, 384 IArkadDubois IG 6 The 3

367 356

IArykanda 2

111

IAttEpitSup RSE 58

355

IBithDörner 2.119

167, 375

IBM 4.1021

363

IDelos 4.1764 IDelphes 1.9 2.31 2.59

163, 370

152, 352 90 90

574

Index of Ancient Sources

IGonnoi 2.111

357

IGRR 3.409 3.488 4.507 4.1427

389 117 362 363

IKosHK 4 12 13

356 356 365

IKosPH 36

355

86 355

77, 86

IGUR I 246

91

IKosSegre 56 149

IHadrianoi 71

181, 381

IKret 4.72

IHierapJ 336

141, 153, 364

ILerosMcCabe 6 80

IIasos 2.416 2.417

160, 371 161, 371

IIlion 1 2 12

152, 355 358 361

IKafizin 119 217 219 236 263 265 283

174–175, 377 175, 378 175, 378 176 176 174–175, 378 176

IKilikiaBM 1.34 2.199 2.201 2.205

366 183 166, 181, 381 376

IKlaros 1 IKlaudiop 84 IKosHerzog 10

ILouvreF 96c

354

ILS 1862

161, 369

IMagnMai 33 44 116

357 357 91

IMilet 1.3.147 4.2.563

80, 91 369

IMontan 80 84 85

167, 373 167–168, 374 167–168, 373

IMT NoerdlTroas 19 388 IMT Troas 581

117

IMylasa 3

153, 354

INikaia 1210

166–167, 374

167, 369

375

355

575

Index of Ancient Sources INomima 12

173, 377

IOlbia 45

375

IPArk 3 18

367 358

IPergamon 1.158 IPontEux 1.37

91

McCabe Theangela 8 73 375

IRT 310

385

ISeleukia 148

181, 386

356 365

Michel 24 33 69 585 995

358 354 379 367 353

Mon.fun.Palmyre IF 67 165, 374 IFC 40 165, 372 O.Amst. 70 71

459 459

O.Ashm.Shelt. 35 197, 456 118 153, 363

IStratonikeia 22 25 32 226 303

386 387 387 92 92

ITyana 101

387

LBW 4 379

MAMA 3.50

360

379 389 389

ISmyrna 2.1.731 2.712

473 467 464 488

McCabe Kaunos 4 92

IPriene 109 112 114

ISikilDial 117 160

M.Chr. 64 189 237 297

363 354

O.Bodl. II 1058 II 1077 II 2103 II 2104 II 2138 II 497 II 558 II 671

106 404 450 450 116 106 107 106

O.BuNjem 86

110

O.Claud. III 528 III 536

115–116 114

576

Index of Ancient Sources

O.Heid. 445

448

O.Mich. I 454 I 519 I 523 I 529 I 530 I 582 I 627 II 889 II 899 IV 1134

190 429 430 429 429 446 446 83 190, 418 430

O.Ont.Mus. I 10

106

O.Wilck. 416 787 1052 1081–1090

107 107 107 107

OGI 2.484 522 565 603

91 373 117 373

P.Aberd. 45

408

P.Amh. II 92 II 94 II 100 II 133

196, 409 413 193, 410 35

P.Ammon I3 II 48

401, 440 395

P.Bad. II 19B II 26 II 31 IV 85B IV 95

192, 405 200, 470 449 412 458

P.Berl.Leihg. II 39 V

412

P.Berl.Zill. 4 6

447 484

P.Bodl. I 34

409

P.Bour. 13

207, 462

P.Brem. 11

185, 391

P.Cair.Isid. 6 9 11 13 26 V 41 44 47 50 61 74 95 96 107

422 425 429 102 445 423 425 426 427 434 202, 474 427 427 200, 467

P.Cair.Masp. I 67006 I 67098 I 67118 I 67121 II 67140 II 67141 II 67151 II 67153 II 67155 II 67158 III 67311 III 67314 III 67352

487 205, 491 485 489 491 90, 99 98 487 487 98, 197, 454 499 498 187, 400

P.Cair.Preis. 4

433

577

Index of Ancient Sources P.Cair.Zen. V 59825

72

P.Charite 15

436

P.Col. VI 123 VII 124 VII 125 VII 136 VII 137 VII 141 VII 148 VII 149 VII 150 VII 152 VII 154 VII 155 VII 156 VII 161 VII 179 X 276

393 470 473 419 423 425 438 438 440 440 439 439 440 441 471 415

P.Coll.Youtie II 76 II 80

470 473

P.Fam.Tebt. 23 24

406 406

P.Fay. 135

113

P.Flor. I 13 I 36 I 41 I 50 I 60 I 64 I 73 I 93 III 297 III 370 III 388

127, 494 473 205, 464 204, 469 432 421 481 488 453 191, 207, 407, 463 403

P.Freer 1 2

483 483

P.Gen. I 41 (2nd ed.)

416

188, 397 490

P.Congr. XV 22

401, 440

P.Got. 12 20

P.Corn. 12 20

205, 470 472

P.Grenf. II 68 II 77

89 113

P.CtYBR inv. 616

208, 463

P.Gron. 5 17

455 188, 397

P.Dura 18 30

89 467

P.Hamb. I 62 I 69

406 193, 408

P.Erl. 101

99

P.Harr. I 93 I 99

197, 418 460

P.Heid. VII 405

489

P.Erl.Diosp. 1 2

430 197, 431

578

Index of Ancient Sources

P.Herm. 29

490

P.Hib. I 40

113

P.Horak 10

453, 486

V V V V V V V V

1693 1708 1727 1731 1769 1794 1795 1878

482 83 489 489 205, 492 184, 283, 398 207, 491 492

P.Iand. VII 142

205, 437, 465

P.Louvre II 120

439

P.Jena II 29

399

P.Mert. I 41 II 91

197, 451 186, 395, 474

P.Kell. I 15 I 23 I 30

396 442 204, 477

P.Köln II 101

186, 281, 394

P.Laur. II 32

497

P.Leid.Inst. 58 62

420 197, 443

P.Leit. 13

419

P.Lips. I6 I 10 I 21 I 24 I 101

127, 205, 472 467 445, 477 449 422

P.Mich. II 123 V 228 V 354 VI 426 VIII 510 IX 573 X 600 XII 643 XII 644 XII 645 XII 646 XII 647 XII 652 XVIII 787 XX 806 XX 809 XX 816 XX 821

87 287 403 193, 411 114 432 424 423 423 424 424 445 428 410 443 444 444 442

P.Münch. III 77 III 138

496 449

P.Lond. II 197 V II 311 III 994 III 1023 III 1164 IV 1712 IV 1713 V 1653 V 1660

185, 395 205, 464 205, 482 481 414 488 488 448 72, 183, 281, 399

P.Neph. 43 46

431 448

P.NYU I 4A I7 II 30

430 439 88

579

Index of Ancient Sources P.Oslo III 119

432

P.Oxf. 16

457, 493

P.Oxy. I 36 I 71 I 103 I 114 III 493 III 532 VI 902 VI 905 IX 1223 X 1262 R X 1280 XII 1408 XII 1473 XII 1489 XII 1532 XII 1542 XII 1590 XIV 1626 XIV 1642 R XIV 1752 XIX 2243 A XVI 1893 XVI 1901 XVI 1911 XVI 1912 XVI 1917 XVI 2030 XVI 2037 XVII 2143 XVIII 2195 XXII 2342 XXVII 2474 XXXIII 2668 XXXVI 2766 XLI 2954 XLII 3044 XLII 3045 XLII 3058 XLII 3086 XLIII 3090 XLIII 3092 XLIII 3117 XLIII 3126

293 83 474 113 194 412 113 465 398 100 187, 281, 397 187–188, 400 466 113 421 425 197, 448 196, 435 470 197, 444 455 399 491 453 457 455 457 457 197, 418 455 194, 286, 405 188, 394 428 424 420 431 431 412 185, 396 190, 414 414 188, 393 436, 497

XLIX 3468 XLIX 3519 XLV 3242 XLV 3246 XLV 3254 XLV 3255 XLVI 3270 XLVI 3307 XLVIII 3390 XLVIII 3396 L 3591 LV 3790 LV 3804 LV 3805 LIX 3980 LX 4089 LX 4090 LXVII 4606 LXVII 4607 LXVII 4610 LXVII 4612

193, 404 98 410 419 473 473 193, 196, 426 446 190, 442 449 415 432 454 454 421 100 441 442 100 460 443

P.Oxy.Hels. 48

185, 394

P.Panop. 14 27

447 434

P.Panop.Beatty 1 419 P.Par. 17

195, 409

P.Petr. II 4 III 42 C.1

72 72

P.Poethke 21

466

P.Prag. I 72

99

P.Princ. II 36 II 37 II 38 R

466 199–200, 467–468 468

580 P.Rev. P.Ross.Georg. III 28 V 42

Index of Ancient Sources 183, 188, 391, 402

476 488, 495

P.Ryl. II 117 II 141 IV 656 IV 706 R

469 285 471 477

P.Sakaon 2 3 10 16 20 21 22 24 25 38 42 48 51 67 68 71 87

471 471 189, 441 426 189, 432 189, 433 189, 435 189, 435 189–190, 436 473 401 476 189, 434 496 475 201, 472 422

P.Schøyen I 25 P.Soter. 8 P.Stras. I 23 III 131 III 141 IV 247 IV 248 V 362 V 458 V 471 bis V 474 V 490 VI 598 VIII 778

P.Tebt. II 277 III 1.778 III 2.895

98 459 459

P.Thead. 6 7 8 20 30 31 34 35 36 41 50 54 55

496 475 472 401 441 433 435 435 436 426 434 471 471

P.Turner 45

444

P.Vind.Sal. 12 16

204, 476 88

P.Wash.Univ. I 18

417

P.Wisc. I3

417

P.Yadin I 18

463

P.Yale I 65

113

172, 382

80

405 476 422 193, 452, 485 487 184, 392 416 481 486 499 498 451

Pap.Eleph.Eng. D14 409 PSI III 202 IV 306 V 452 V 465 VII 819 VIII 886 VIII 931

197, 438 413 447 197, 417 428 100 452

581

Index of Ancient Sources VIII 954 X 1119 XI 1182 XII 1239 XV 1562

456 204, 465 25 (n. 131), 217 (n. 374), 330 (n. 108) 478 398

PSI Congr. XXI 16B

420

Rigsby Asylia 16 48 49 83 94

356 356 365 357 357

SB I 4426 I 5314 I 5315 III 6268 III 7013 IV 7474 V 7621 V 7666 V 7996 V 8013 V 8023 VI 8988 VI 9070 VI 9183 VI 9193 VI 9278 VI 9292 VI 9295 VI 9399 VI 9526 VI 9586 VI 9622 VIII 9835 VIII 9852 VIII 9902 VIII 10205 X 10293 X 10551 XII 10788 B XII 10981 XII 11007

469 450 450 456 81 (n. 86) 200, 467–468 428 437 478 476 422 495 426 427 483 490 485 499 456 393 495 476 471 471 446 419 410 81 (n. 86) 71 447 190, 403

XII 11238 XIV 11521 XIV 11624 XIV 11957 XIV 11972 XIV 12043 XIV 12049 XIV 12051 XIV 12131 XIV 12132 XIV 12139 XIV 12167 XVI 12421 XVI 12505 XVI 13008 XVI 16537 XVIII 13134 XVIII 13176 XVIII 13584 XVIII 14067 XX 14306 XX 14409 XX 14416 XX 14669 XX 14670 XX 14671 XX 14701 XX 15133 XX 15136 XXII 15311 XXII 15382 XXII 15850 XXIV 15920 XXIV 15954 XXIV 16000 XXIV 16045 XXIV 16272 XXVI 16665

394 430 110 399 443 492 458, 494 484 486 499 413 431 87 415 187, 392 409 406 465 490 420 408 286 205, 493 452, 483 491 490 458 80 453 443 107 407 403 422 446 83 72 458

SEG 3.584 3.710 4.247 4.250 4.255 11.1107 12.371 12.379 12.380 12.554

375 154, 359 386 387 387 358 356 356 365 360

582 13.273 15.809 15.881 19.181 19.182 19.835 20.92 20.94 21.506 21.530 21.643 22.274 28.1566 29.127 29.1130 bis 30.1658 33.1039 35.991 36.1040 36.1048 37.673 39.1180 39.1222 40.394 40.1380 bis 40.1380 ter 46.1669 47.1771 49.1051 49.1788 51.532 53.1180 53.1373 55.1452 56.1359 56.1751

Index of Ancient Sources 357 373 385 158, 367 158 389 167, 372 366 383 388 368 364 381 321, 382 157, 165, 359, 368 164, 376 83 377 165 80 365 83, 162, 320, 369 366 153, 357 155, 363 367 364 80 73 167, 374 153, 353 385 359 380 153, 362 81

Segre Hellenica 5 102–28

365

Sel.Pap. I 48 I 86 I 164 II 361

460 490 398 435

SGO 1 01/19/37 1 06/02/32

385 362

2 09/09/09 2 09/10/02

375 374

SIG 167 283 364 531 646 647 748 873 1262

354 154, 354 355 357 379 358 179 362 363

SIRIS 798

385

Sokolowski LSCG 77 177

353 355

Sokolowski LSCGSuppl. 20

388

SPP I, pp. 6–7, #1 VIII 981 VIII 1040 VIII 1192 XX 13 XX 53 XX 53 XX 95 XX 121

479 493 499 190, 451 417 88 88 436 497

T. Homolle BCH 50 3–106

375

T.Sulpicii 13 60 66

109 283 342

T.Vindol. II 180 II 181 II 182

81 (n. 86), 285 (n. 201) 81 (n. 86) 81 (n. 86)

583

Index of Ancient Sources II 184 II 200 TAM 3.35 5.1.46 5.3.1882 TextMin 41.20 UPZ I2 I 86 W.Chr. 124 258 276 311 347 379 423

81 (n. 86) 285 (n. 201)

364 373 374

362 71 115

460 391, 402 416 409 413 433 446

Waldmann Kultreformen A 96–104 A 233–234 Sz 42–47

379 361 360

Welles 51

360

Wood Discoveries App. 8, #1

355

Index of Medieval and Modern Authors Alexander, L. 237 Allen, R. 48 Andreau, J. 215 Aquinas, T. 97 Arangio-Ruiz, V. 98, 201 Arzt-Grabner, P. 247 Ascough, R. S. 12 Aune, D. 239 Barclay, J. M. G. 46 Barr, J. 57, 64, 149 Baumert. N. 51, 133, 136ff, 149, 151, 209, 281–282 Bean, G. E. 167 Beare, F. W. 2, 225–226, 301 Berger, K. 236 Betz, H. D. 12, 239 Bile, M. 77 Bingen, J. 177 Bori, P. C. 144 Bormann, L. 226, 239, 280, 296 Bornkamm, G. 223, 226 Briones, D. E. 12–14, 40–42, 240, 262, 316 Broekaert, W. 330, 336, 346 Bruns, C. G. 180 Buchanan, C. O. 232 Buckland, W. W. 332 Calero Secall, I. 77 Campbell, J. Y. 121ff, 125ff, 133ff, 149, 209 Capper, B. J. 18, 306, 312 Caragounis, C. C. 59–60 Chaniotis, A. 173–174 Collange, J.-.F 226–227, 291–292, 294 Cornelius a Lapide 97, 255, 272–273, 300–301 Cothenet, E. 145 Cotton, H. 324

Cremer, H. 56–57 Crook, J. A. 47, 317–318 Currie, S. D. 144 Daillé, J. 97, 271–272 Datiri, D. C. 40–41 Deissmann, G. A. 3, 12, 49, 52, 55ff, 64, 66, 104–105, 109, 119 Dibelius, M. 228 Dickey, E. 61 Dickson, J. P. 7, 12, 48, 291 Dittenberger, W. 180 Dodd, C. H. 2, 291, 301–302 Dungan, D. L. 6, 8, 14 Dürrbach, F. 160–162 Eadie, J. A. 301 Ebner, M. 274 Edart, J.-B. 234 Ehrman, B. D. 94 Ellicott, C. J. 258 Ellis, E. E. 10 Endenburg, P. J. T. 130ff, 149, 151, 209, 242, 261 Engberg-Pedersen, P. 239 Erasmus, D. 301 Fee, G. D. 18, 313–315 Fitzgerald, J. T. 238, 241–242 Fleury, J. 16ff, 27–28, 252, 255, 273– 274, 286, 298, 307, 312, 315, 339, 341, 348 Foucart, M. P. 178–179 Friedrich, G. 226, 230 Friesen, S. J. 44, 46 Garland, D. E. 232 Georgi, D. 6 Gignac, F. T. 56 Gnilka, J. 226, 292, 295

586

Index of Authors

Goguel, M. 229 Goodspeed, E. J. 226, 255 Grégoire, H. 168 Greßmann, H. 147 Grey, C. 203 Groenewald, E. P. 144 Grotius, H. 272–273, 301, 307 Hagedorn, D. 186 Hainz, J. 137, 144, 146–148 Hansen, G. W. 256, 315–316 Harnack, A. von 227 Harris, E. M. 327 Harrison, J. R. 29, 261 Hatzfeld, J. 163 Hawthorne, G. F. 2, 306–307 Hemer, C. J. 232 Hengel, M. 3 Hengstl, J. 192, 325 Hermesdorf, B. H. D. 19, 273–274, 287 Hicks, E. L. 160 Hock, R. F. 3, 5, 11, 40, 48, 349 Hollander, H. W. 148 Holloway, P. A. 230, 232, 234, 239, 249–250 Holmberg, B. 6, 12 Homolle, T. 90, 159 Horsfall, N. 31 Horsley, G. H. R. 24, 58, 60–61, 66, 180 Jakab, É. 66 Johnson, A. C. 178, 189, 206 Johnson, L. T. 235, 237, 241 Jones, J. W. 327 Jourdan, G. V. 147 Judge, E. A. 5, 43–44 Kaser, M. 218–219 Kearsley, R. A. 162 Kehoe, D. P. 201, 203 Kennedy, A. A. 51–52 Kertledge, K. 146 Kittel, G. 57, 129 Klaffenbach, G. 158 Klauck, H.-J. 227 Koester, H. 223, 225–226 Konstan, D. 313 Koskenniemi, H. 235 Kramer, B. 186 Kreissig, H. 43

Kyrtatas, D. J. 43 Lee, J. A. 54, 56, 58, 61–64, 69 Liebengood, K. D., 47 Lieberman, M. S. 168 Lietaert Peerbolte, L. J. 48 Lincoln, A. T. 147–149 Lindemann, A. 226 Link, S. 173 Lohmeyer, E. 6–7, 245, 295 Longenecker, B. W. 46–47 Louw, J. P. 67 Lütbow, U. von 213 Mackay, B. S. 232 Malherbe, A. 43, 237, 241 Marchal, J. A. 240, 243 Marshall, P. 9, 38, 41–42, 274–275, 277– 278 Mayer, E. 45 McDermott, J. M. 145 Meeks, W. A. 41, 43–44 Meggitt, J. 36, 44–46 Metzner, R. 239 Meyer, E. A. 319–320 Meyer, H. A. W. 223, 273, 295 Michael, J. H. 302 Millett, P. 39, 74–75 Milligan, G. 49, 52, 55–56, 58, 66, 76– 77, 87, 113, 118, 293–294, 301 Mitchell, A. C. 238 Mitford, T. B. 164, 167, 175–177 Moffatt, J. 223, 227 Mommsen, T. 161, 178–180 Montevecchi, O. 185, 206 Moule, H. C. G. 76–77, 294–295 Moulton, J. H. 49, 52, 55–56, 58, 66, 76– 77, 87, 105, 113, 118, 293–294, 301 Müller-Bardorff, J. 223, 226 Muraoka, T. 82 Musculus, W. 97 Nägeli, T. 56 Nicolet, C. 156, 162, 180, 327 Nongbri, B. 262–263 Oakes, P. 47 O’Brien, P. T. 40, 251, 302 Osiek, C. 94

Index of Authors Panikulam, G. 137, 145 Papathomas, A. 205 Peterlin, D. 2, 11, 48, 239, 304, 306 Peterman, G. W. 12, 16, 28ff, 52, 62, 148, 152, 216, 258, 276–278, 304, 315 Pilhofer, P. 278–280 Poland, F. 176 Pouilloux, J. 177 Pratscher, W. 6–7, 12 Préaux, C. 107 Preisigke, F. 52, 143 Radet, G. A. 160–162 Rahtjen, B. D. 223, 225, 226, 228 Ramsay, W. M. 111 Rathbone, D. 66, 213 Reed, J. T. 240 Reumann, J. 235, 237–240 Riccobono, S. 180 Robert, L. 35, 118, 160–161, 163, 166– 167, 181 Roberts, A. 94 Rostovtzeff, M. I. 160, 317 Rothe, R. 57 Rougé, J. 213–214 Rowlandson, J. 218 Sampley, J. P. 11, 15–16, 21ff, 152, 180, 216, 218–219, 253, 255, 292, 296, 312, 315, 335, 346–348 Schenk, W. 226 Schleiermacher, F. 57 Schmidt, J. 180 Schmithals, W. 12, 223, 225–226 Schnabel, E. J. 48 Schubert, P. 246–250, 252, 265

587

Schwartz, S. 29, 33–34 Seesemann, H. 120, 125ff, 138ff, 150, 161, 209, 257, 261 Still, T. D. 3 Stirewalt, M. L. 239 Stowers, S. K. 236–237, 241 Strelan, J. G. 6 Strelan, R. 60 Szlechter, E. 212–213 Taubenschlag, R. 187, 192, 195, 207– 208 Theissen, G. 9, 12, 40, 43, 48 Thraede, K. 235 Thrall, M. E. 229 Thumb, A. 56 Tischendorf, C. 262 Van Effenterre, M. and H. 173 Veyne, P. 33, 45 Vielhauer, P. 225 Vincent, M. R. 257 Ware, J. P. 48 Watson, A. 318, 322 Weinel, H. 3 Welborn, L. L. 9 West, L. C. 189 Wettstein, J. J. 262, 270 White, J. L. 236 White, L. M. 238, 314 Wilcken, U. 106 Witherington III, B. 2, 239, 314 Zahn, T. 223, 231

Index of Subjects acceptilatio 89, 301, 307 acceptum/a 17, 97 (n. 196), 102–103, 272, 275–276, 284–285 Accounting 17–20, 78ff, 270ff, 342 actio pro socio 27, 195, 211, 334–336 actor/ἄκτωρ 111, 160 adversaria 284–285 affectio societatis 218, 333 αἰτέω 292 Alliance (political/military) 78, 93, 154– 155, 170–171, 210, 216, 219, 258–259, 354, 380, 383, 389 amicitia 26, 32, 171, 236, 277 ἀπέχω 17, 37, 64, 104ff, 116, 119, 222, 292, 301ff, 344 apocha/ἀποχή 109–110, 116, 301, 307, 444 ἀπόδοσις 85 ἀπολογία 259, 262, 311 apostolos 233, 290 ἀποτίνω 37, 364, 366, 381 argentarius 273, 284, 287, 325 (n. 86), 337 ars 50, 336, 349 Artisan 3 (n. 12), 17, 85, 90, 309, 343, 350 Associate/ally 123, 165, 197 – business 17, 134–135, 142, 156ff, 183, 188, 190ff, 211, 214, 367ff, 402ff – legal 165, 359 – political 90, 167, 189–190, 371, 411ff – religious 167–169, 260ff Atticism 62 αὐτάρκεια/αὐτάρκης 230, 268–269, 299, 343 Banker/money-changer 19, 72, 102, 273, 284, 287–288, 325 βάρος 4 (n. 17) βεβαίωσις 259, 262, 311

Benefaction/benefactor 35, 42, 369, 384, 70–71, 74, 83, 89, 117–118, 167–168, 261–263, 278–280, 297, 302, 313 Biblical philology 53ff Broker/brokerage 41–42, 263, 312, 316 calendarium 272 chirographum/χειρόγραφον 109, 199, 207, 461 Chrysostom, John 76–77, 96–97, 235, 254–255, 294–295, 301, 306 Cicero 22, 27, 35, 156, 179, 222, 227, 270– 271, 274ff, 302 codex accepti et expensi 18 (n. 95), 19–20, 102, 282ff Collection (Jerusalem) 49, 76, 148, 290– 291, 297 collegium 163, 166–167, 189–190, 197, 347, 370, 372, 439, 443, 461–462 colonia partiaria 199, 201, 467–468, 496 comes 133 commercium 171 Common fund/arca communis 17, 19, 287–289, 311, 335, 337 Communal tomb 142, 165ff, 386 communicatio 216 (n. 370), 216 (n. 373), 249, 255, 272 communio (pro diviso/indiviso) 199, 203– 205, 217–218, 452 Communion/eucharist 137, 144ff, 168, 199, 216, 253ff, 478 communitas 217–218 Compte courant/current account 17–18, 288 condemnatio 317, 335 consortium 25, 218, 325, 330 constitutio Antoniniana 324, 328 Contractor 90, 158–159, 164, 183, 197, 207 culpa levis 335

590

Index of Subjects

Cynic philosophers 5, 350 δανείζω 71 (n. 15), 75 (n. 38), 214 δάνειον 113, 343 Debt/debtor 69, 84, 89, 94, 113, 117, 155, 195, 202, 286, 306–307, 335, 342, 355, 417 decuma 111, 164, 179, 370 δεκανός 190, 196, 435 δεκάπρωτος 190, 419, 421 δηµοσιώνης 106, 162, 164 διαγραφή 19 (n. 99), 273 (n. 144), 287 διαγράφω 72 dissensus 334 do ut des 269, 279 dolus malus 191, 335 δόµα 68ff, 291ff, 340, 343–344 donatio 84, 89–90, 343 δόσις 6, 38–39, 70–71, 80, 84ff, 275, 277, 298, 306–307 δοσοληψία 93 δῶρον 343 ἔκδόσις 85 ἐκκλησία 10, 14, 269, 289, 299, 341, 347, 383, 486 ἐλεηµοσύνη 343 ἐλλογέω/ἐλλογάω 36 Epaphroditus 8, 138, 225–226, 228, 230, 232–234, 249, 255, 266, 269, 273, 292, 309, 340, 344 ἐπίδοσις 85 ἐπιζητέω 100, 291ff ἐπιµελητής 100, 163, 189–190, 196, 419, 436, 442–444, 440 ἐπίσκοπος 289 Epistolography 235ff Epitaph 65, 141, 159ff, 181, 355, 364, 366, 369ff, 385, 387 ἔρανος 176, 343 ercto non cito 25, 203 (n. 305), 217, 330, 337 (n. 163) ἐργασία 20, 132, 177, 186, 196, 281, 298, 341, 394, 399, 409, 443 ἔργον ἀγαθόν 232, 251, 265 ἐρωτάω 292 εὐαγγέλιον/gospel 1, 4, 9, 13–15, 20–21, 25, 29, 41, 50, 124–125, 128, 139, 232, 234, 245ff, 250ff, 260ff, 278, 298ff, 309, 311ff, 338, 341, 348–349

Euergetism 33, 279 εὐχαριστῶ 14, 28, 34–35, 166, 232, 247ff, 372, 374, 385 ἐφηµερίς 284, 286 expensum/a 17, 19–20, 102, 103 (n. 230), 275 (n. 153), 276 (n. 154, 155), 282, 283 (n. 187), 302 (n. 293) ζητέω 292 Fellowship 38, 123–124, 252–253, 256– 257 fides (bona) 26, 299, 335–336, 343 Financial policy 3, 11ff, 40–42 Fishing concession 193, 196, 426 foedus 154, 170–171 fraternitas 26 fraus 335 Friendship 6–7, 10, 13, 26, 34, 38–39, 79, 104, 131, 135, 170, 171, 245, 263, 269– 270, 274–277, 289, 310ff – letter of 234ff – ‘patronal’ 10 Gaius (jurist) 22, 201–202, 325, 330, 343 Gaius (Paul’s host) 8, 49 Gemeinschaft 126–127, 130, 138–141, 146, 148, 204, 252–253, 257, 353, 467, 469, 482, 485 Gift 2, 7, 10, 12–13, 25, 40–42, 68ff, 84– 85, 89ff, 110, 117, 138, 146, 221, 250, 264, 266, 275–276, 280, 291ff, 302ff, 314–315, 343, 349 – exchange 28ff, 74, 79 Gospel see εὐαγγέλιον Gratitude 28, 34ff, 69, 239, 246ff, 304, 307, 311 Homologia/ὁµολογία 116, 157, 207 Hospitality 7–9, 313 in eodem sensu 24, 334, 340 infamia 211, 335 iurisdictio 329 ius civile 323 ius gentium 323, 325, 329 Joint-ownership 165, 173, 182, 185, 188, 199, 203–205, 208, 218, 258–259, 289, 325, 330, 394, 464ff Juristic personality 131, 322

Index of Subjects Justinian (jurist) 22, 320 καρπεία 77, 294 καρπός 75ff, 264, 291ff, 343–344, 392, 433, 437, 445, 477, 496 κοινοπραξία 216 κοινωνέω 17, 96, 122–123, 125–126, 134– 135, 137ff, 152ff, 183ff, 269, 281–282, 311, 353ff, 391ff κοινωνία 12–15, 17–18, 20–21, 95 (n. 184), 96, 120ff, 169ff, 198ff, 242, 246ff, 298– 300, 308ff, 326ff, 377ff, 461ff – µετάλλου κ. 132 – συµπλοικὴ κ. 132 – χρηµάτων κ. 132, 135, 217 (n. 372), 243 κοινωνός 94 (n. 178), 121–122, 126–127, 133–135, 138, 260ff, 367ff, 402ff κυρία- clause 191–192, 206–207 κωµάρχης Lease/Joint-lease 88, 108, 115, 142, 184, 187–188, 191, 193, 195–196, 199ff, 258–259, 325, 392, 397, 402, 404, 409ff, 426, 437, 445ff, 464ff Ledger 20, 38, 81, 93, 101, 103, 270ff, 300 λειτουργία/leitourgia 233, 249, 259, 266, 292, 301, 344 λειτουργός/leitourgos 290, 417 lex portorii Asiae 83, 164, 320, 369 lex provincia 323 lex Rhodia 215 Lexicography 53ff λῆ(µ)ψις 38–39, 82ff, 273, 275, 277, 369 Literary unity (Philippians) 223ff Loan (financial) 7175, 83, 85, 87, 90–91, 110, 113, 114, 205, 276, 331, 343, 355– 356, 427, 432, 464, 467 locatio 156, 180, 201, 212 (n. 349), 338 λογοποιέω 285, 344 λόγος (εἰς λ.) 79ff, 291–292, 297–300 λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως 15, 17, 19–20, 37–38, 41, 78ff, 123, 139, 222, 270ff, 342, 348 λόγος ληµµάτων καὶ ἀναλωµάτων 79 (n. 67), 101 (τὸ) λοιπόν 225, 229 Lydia 8, 17, 20, 273, 313, 339

591

Marital union 198, 216–219, 379, 387– 388, 461ff, 473, 476, 487ff, 496, 499 Maritime loan 109, 135, 212ff, 330–331 Martyrdom 168, 244, 261 (συν)µετέχω 123, 136–137, 154, 281, 353ff, 358, 386 µετοχή 136–137, 187 (n. 213), 206, 217 (n. 372), 326, 329, 462 µέτοχος 121–122, 126, 137, 166–167, 188, 196 (n. 268), 197 (n. 272), 404 Mission/Missionary strategy 1ff, 47–48, 280ff, 308–309, 310ff µισθαποχή 109 µισθόω 413, 415, 474, 488 µίσθωσις 180, 207, 325, 494, 499 Montanism 167–169, 373–374 mutuum 343 nauticum foenus/ναυτικὸν δάνεισµα see maritime loan negotiator 178 nummularius 284, 325 (n. 86) obligatio (legal obligation) 93, 112, 115, 193, 216, 307, 314–315, 325–326, 332, 336 ὁµολογία see homologia ὁµολογέω 108, 113, 115–116, 157, 184, 186–187, 191, 207–207, 281, 354, 362, 394, 397–398, 402, 406–407, 410, 413, 417, 420, 451–454, 458, 462–464, 472ff Onesimus 290 opera 50, 255, 299 (n. 276), 336, 342–343, 349, 454 (προσ-)ὀφείλω 36 ὀψώνιον 10, 290, pactum/pactio 179–181 Paraenesis 239 παρουσία 236 Partnership 15ff, 122, 252ff, 310ff – agricultural 173–174, 184ff, 191ff, 200ff, 392ff, 407, 413, 481ff – business 130ff, 140, 155–157, 159, 174ff, 184ff, 206ff, 210–211, 329ff, 379, 414, 454, 462–463, 466 – legal 155–156, 359, 368 – maritime 211ff – political 123, 170–173, 380, 383

592

Index of Subjects

paterfamilias 19–20, 283 (n. 189), 285 (n. 200) Patron(ess)/προστάτις/patronus 8, 17, 117, 168, 176, 280, 313–314, 346 patronage 32–33, 263, 278–280, 312–316, 344–345, 349–350 pecunia 50, 271, 317, 336, 342–343 Petition 71, 83, 186–187, 193, 202, 285, 395, 400ff, 410–411, 415ff, 433ff, 441ff, 451, 459, 465, 469ff, 487, 496– 497 Philemon 8, 22, 29, 36, 49, 349 Phoebe 2, 8, 49 πλεονάζω 77, 291–292, 297–298 πληρόω 307 Pneumatiker 6, 270 πολίτευµα 231, 278 πολιτεύω 231 portoria 83, 106, 160–162, 320, 369, 371 praetor peregrinus 323 Prison/imprisonment 8, 138, 226, 233, 262, 291 προκοπή 264ff, 299, 341, 346 προπέµπω 9 Ps.-Demetrius 236–237 Ps.-Libanius 241 publicanus (see also socius) 159ff, 188– 189, 288, 320, 369–371, 376 ratio accepti et dati/expensi 19, 97, 102– 103, 270–272, 275–277, 284–289 renuntiatio 334, 340, 345 res gestae 171, 380–381 Roman Law 22ff, 65–66, 194–195, 197, 204, 207, 218, 316ff Self-sufficiency (see also αὐτάρκεια) 2 Seneca 26, 32, 41–42, 222, 276, 302 – De beneficiis 38, 41 Septuagint (LXX) 63–64 Share-cropping 200–203, 468, 496 σκηνοποιός 20, 45 (n. 258), 298, 341 Social reciprocity/‘giving and receiving’ 2, 28ff, 37–38, 277ff, 314 societas – alicuius negotiationis 24, 187, 207– 208, 212, 298, 330, 337 – argentariorum 337 – Christi 21ff, 338 – danistariae 325, 333 (n. 136)

– evangelii 25, 338, 341, 349 – omnium bonorum 19, 24–25, 199, 204, 216–218, 330, 338 – publicanorum/vectigalium 156, 159ff, 189, 337, 369–371, 376 – unius rei 24–25, 131, 334, 337 – universorum 17, 337–338 Société de fait 16ff Société en commandite 213 socius (see also publicanus) 26, 128, 159, 195, 218–219, 332, 336–337, 369–371, 376 Sophist 11, 13, 348 stipulatio 171, 333 Stoic philosophers 32, 269 Suffering 244–245, 261, 269 summa honoraria 92 tabula 19–20, 81 (n. 86), 103 (n. 230), 272–273, 275 (n. 153), 282 (n. 186), 285 (n. 200), 287, 289, 300, 320 Tax-farming/-farmer 72, 132, 177, 183– 184, 188, 195, 206, 337, 391, 399, 402, 408–409, 414, 416, 428, 434, 448, 451, 454, 457, 466 τελώνης 106–107, 162, 164 Tentmaking 3 Thanksgiving 35, 225, 230, 246ff Theodosian code 320 Timothy 2, 228 tituli picti 325, 331, 347 τόκος 76–77, 113, 294–295 τραπεζίτης 132 Vulgate 38, 103, 216, 230, 270, 286 Φιλία (see also Friendship) 32, 154, 170– 171, 231, 236, 238, 313 Φιλία καὶ συµµαχία 154, 170–171 φιλοφρόνησις 236 χαίρετε 228, 230 χάρις 29, 138, 248, 260ff, 311 χάρισµα 343 χειρόγραφον see chirographum χρεία 17, 42, 290, 298, 300 χρῆµα 78, 82, 84, 95, 132, 134–135, 152, 243 ὠνή 183, 196