2. The Assimilation of κοινωνία with societas

As pointed above, the greatest weakness of Fleury and Sampley's theses has been their failure to establish some semantic equivalence between κοινωνία and societas, which partly explains the general disaffection with their respective interpretations. A categorical dismissal of Fleury and Sampley's understanding is unwarranted, however. For as the Dutch scholar Peter J. T. Endenburg demonstrated long ago in his (overlooked) study of ancient Greek zakengemeenschappen (i.e. ‘commercial associations’), κοινων- cognates are often employed in classical sources to describe economic partnerships.Footnote ²³ This is particularly evident in several of Demosthenes’ orations which make reference to κοινωνίαι in maritime trade (i.e. συμπλοικὴ κ.), mining (i.e. μετάλλου κ.), banking and tax-farming (i.e. χρημάτων κ.; e.g. Demosthenes, Or. 32, 34, 35, 56; cf. Plato, Resp. 343d, Leg. 632b, 861e; Isaeus, Or. 4.26; Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1159b 29, 1160a 9, 16–17, 1161b 11, Eth. Eud. 1241b 27).Footnote ²⁴ Endenburg also noted that (συγ)κοινωνός could often designate a business friend or partner (e.g. Demosthenes, Or. 32, 34, 56),Footnote ²⁵ and that κοινωνέω could be used in the sense of συναλλάσσω to denote business association or cooperation in financial matters (e.g. Aristotle, Pol. 1280b 22, 1328b 6–24; Xenophon, Mem. 2.6.23; Demosthenes, Or. 37.10, 38).Footnote ²⁶

Endenburg's insights, which have never made inroads in NT scholarship,Footnote ²⁷ can actually be confirmed by a detailed survey of documentary sources, which, significantly, have also been largely neglected by biblical scholars.Footnote ²⁸ This oversight is particularly prejudicial since documentary sources generally reflect more accurately than literary sources the vocabulary, syntax and register of the New Testament, and are more representative of oral language and popular culture.Footnote ²⁹ A meticulous examination of approximately 100 inscriptions and 370 papyri in which κοινωνία, κοινωνός and κοινωνέω appear certainly establishes that the sense of cooperation or partnership in some kind of enterprise, be it political, commercial or otherwise, is often conveyed by one of these three terms. It is beyond the scope of this essay to review in detail the bulk of the evidence.Footnote ³⁰ Rather, the following section will only present a few relevant examples that illustrate this claim particularly well.

Although in the majority of the inscriptions κοινωνέω is employed in conjunction with partitive genitives such as τοῦ ἱεροῦ/τῶν ἱερῶν, τᾶς/τῆς θυσίας/τῶν θυσιῶν, τῆς πανηγύρεως, τοῦ ἀγῶνος, τᾶς πολιτείας to express participation in religious festivals (including the partaking of sacrifices),Footnote ³¹ in athletic or artistic contests,Footnote ³² or in the politeia of a city,Footnote ³³ the verb can also occasionally evoke cooperation in a common enterprise. This connotation is apparent in a mosaic inscription from the Syrian basilica of Houeidjit Halaoua, which honours the collaborative effort of the benefactors in bearing the costs of the construction: Κοσμία καὶ | ὁ τιμ(ιώτατος) Κοσμᾶς | ἐκοινώνη||σαν ἐν τῷ | ἔργῳ τούτῳ (‘Kosmia and the most honourable Kosmas partnered in this work’, SEG 40.1380 bis; 471 ce).

In an earlier and slightly more insightful inscription, IEph ia.4, the law on the liquidation of debts after the war between Demetrius and Lysimachus around 297–296 bce, a rare substantival participial form of προσκοινωνέω, τοῦ προσκοινωνοῦντος, is also used to describe creditors and landholders’ contractual agreement (cf. ὁμολογέω, ll. 24, 25) regarding partial remissions of debts and reallocations of land: ἀντίγραφα δὲ λαμβάνειν τὸγ γεωργὸν τῶν τοῦ τ[οκισ]|τοῦ τοῦ αὐτῶι προσκοινωνοῦντος καὶ τὸν [τ]οκιστὴν τῶν τοῦ γεωργοῦ τοῦ αὐτ[ῶι προσ]|κοινωνοῦντος τιμημάτωγ καὶ δανείων κτλ. (‘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., ll. 26–8).Footnote ³⁴ Although this use of a participle is quite unusual, it is not without precedent. Demosthenes, for instance, designates those forming a business partnership for the concession of mines οἱ κοινωνοῦντες (μετάλλου) (Or. 37.38).Footnote ³⁵

While the verb is equally rare in papyri, it describes more often the action of partnering in some kind of business enterprise. For example, in the tax-revenue laws of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (P.Rev., 259/8 bce), associates of the tax-farmers 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).Footnote ³⁶ In the lease SB xvi.13008 (144 ce), two men, Haprokras and Demetrios, agree to partner (κοινωνέω) with a certain Dioskoros in the joint-lease of a date and olive grove: βουλόμε[θα] κοινωνή[σ]ειν σ ἕκα [ἡ]μῶν ὰ τ[ον μέρ] πρὸς μ[όνους τοὺς ἐπικει]ο τ[οῦ ἐνεσ]τῶ[το] (ἔτους) φοινι[κικο]ὺς καὶ ἐλαικο[ς] καρποὺς κτλ. (‘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]’ etc., ll. 7–16). Each shall partake of a third of the harvest and pay to the lessor, Dioskoros, a levy of fifty-six drachmas (cf. ll. 18–24).

A similar sense of κοινωνέω can be observed in P.Stras. v.362 (149–50 ce), a lease between two farmers,Footnote ³⁷ and in P.Lond. v.1794 (487 ce), a classic example of ‘contratti di società per lavori o imprese commerciali’Footnote ³⁸ between two fruiterers who agree to form a partnership and to share in all revenues and expenditures.Footnote ³⁹ Interestingly, the compound verb ἐπικοινωνέω is used in an analogous way in a number of documents such as the partnership contract P.Köln ii.101 (274–80 ce),Footnote ⁴⁰ and the lease P.Oxy. x.1280 (fourth century ce),Footnote ⁴¹ which provides another good example of a societas negotiationis (i.e. a commercial partnership).Footnote ⁴²

In contrast with κοινωνέω, κοινωνός is much more frequently attested as bearing an economic connotation in inscriptions and papyri, and, more precisely, as designating a business associate, as has in fact long been noted.Footnote ⁴³ Particularly interesting are Roman inscriptions in which κοινωνός specifically refers to a partner, i.e. a socius, in a societas publicanorum. This can be inferred from several Asian epitaphs such as IEph 2245 or IIasos ii.416, which make mention of the κοινωνοί in charge of the 5% manumission tax and the portoria (i.e. customs tax).Footnote ⁴⁴ Although the term never identifies publicans in papyri (societas publicanorum were never operative in Egypt),Footnote ⁴⁵ it frequently designates partners in a tax-farming concession (e.g. P.Rev., col. 10, l. 5; 259/8 bce), associate officials supervising tax collections (e.g. κ. σιτολόγοι/ἀπαιτηταί/σιτομέτραι/ἐπιμεληταί),Footnote ⁴⁶ associates in some business enterprise (e.g. BGU ii.530; P.Flor. iii.370), or at least people who shared the same professional activity and who may have been members of the same collegium (e.g. PSI iii.202, P.Leid.Inst. 62). This illustrates quite well that κοινωνοί were generally understood to be bound by socio-economic and legal obligations.

Like κοινωνέω, κοινωνία can be employed to denote participation in religious festivals (κ. τῶν θυσιῶν/σπονδῶν/ἱερῶν),Footnote ⁴⁷ or in some form of politeia (e.g. κ. τοῦ Πανελληνίου),Footnote ⁴⁸ and can sometimes even refer to a political alliance.Footnote ⁴⁹ Inscriptions in which κοινωνία indicates an economic partnership are admittedly rather rare. Several suggestive examples are nonetheless provided by a number of artefacts. For instance, pottery fragments from the Nymphaeum of Kafizin (ca. 225 bce) make specific reference to a κοινωνία of flax and seeds, most likely some sort of commercial organisation.Footnote ⁵⁰

An equally interesting example is found in a senatus consultum concerning the city of Thisbae (Boeotia), which had contracted a κοινωνία with an Italian negotiator, Cn. Pandosinus: (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 (‘similarly, the same Thisbaeans have declared that a partnership 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’, IG vii.2225. ll. 53–56; 170 bce). Given the lack of contextual information, it is difficult to determine the exact nature of this κοινωνία and impossible to ascertain which Latin word was used in the original version.Footnote ⁵¹ However, it is highly probable that it corresponded to a partnership contract (i.e. societas), whereby Pandosinus assisted the Thisbaeans in supplying the occupying Roman forces with grain and oil.Footnote ⁵² Should this interpretation be correct, this inscription would constitute an important piece of evidence in support of the thesis that the socio-economic and legal concept of societas could be expressed in Greek by the term κοινωνία, as M. P. Foucart (ed. pr.), Theodor Mommsen and Claude Nicolet concluded.Footnote ⁵³ At the very least, it illustrates that κοινωνία could refer to some commercial partnership between a single individual and a group of individuals (cf. Justinian, Inst. 3.25.5)Footnote ⁵⁴ – precisely the kind of evidence Horsley once called for.Footnote ⁵⁵

In papyri, κοινωνία is most frequently used with the prepositions ἐπί, ἀπό or κατά, to denote the joint ownership or joint exploitation of a piece of property, be it some land,Footnote ⁵⁶ a house (or share thereof),Footnote ⁵⁷ animals,Footnote ⁵⁸ workshops,Footnote ⁵⁹ or even slaves.Footnote ⁶⁰ Due to the lack of details or the lacunose state of the documents, it is sometimes difficult to determine which legal arrangement the prepositional phrase ἐπὶ/κατὰ/ἀπὸ κοινωνίαν/ᾷ/ας implied, whether it consisted of a joint ownership (communio pro diviso/indiviso), a lease in partnership, a colonia partiaria,Footnote ⁶¹ or even a societas omnium bonorum. In the instance of jointly owned property (communio), a partnership often imposed itself upon the landlords in any case, as they had to cultivate the estate or parcel of land in common.Footnote ⁶² Legally speaking, such arrangement would have effectively 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).Footnote ⁶³

More interesting, however, are examples in which κοινωνία essentially describes a business partnership. In P.Bour. 13 (98 ce), for instance, two traders agree to form a partnership to sell lentils at a local market: [Πετο]σ[ῖ]ρ[ις Ἰ]ρανούπ[ιος] καὶ Πετερμούθης Ạ'πύγχιος, ἀμφότεροι τῶν ἀπὸ Μέμφεως φα[κ]εψῶν, ὁμολογοῦ[σ]ι τεθεῖσθαι [πρ]ὸς ἑαυτοὺς μετοχὴν καὶ κοινωνίαν (‘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’, l. 1). In this case, the idea of a (legally binding) business association, i.e. ‘[e]in Gesellschaftsvertrag’,Footnote ⁶⁴ is unmistakable and is confirmed by the proximity of the term μετοχή, which also frequently designates economic partnerships in papyri,Footnote ⁶⁵ and by the modalities and penalty clauses of the contract detailed further down (ll. 3, 6). This amply justifies Montevecchi's classification of this contract in her category of ‘contratti di società’, which, from the perspective of Roman law, would have been considered as a societas negotiationis.Footnote ⁶⁶

While P.Bour. 13 may seem unusual, this rare use of κοινωνία is in fact observed in three more documents:

1. (1) P.Flor. iii.370 (132 ce): a contract for the subletting of public land, which concludes with the unusual clause ἡ κοινωνία κυρία (l. 18) to reinforce the legal efficacy of the partnership.Footnote ⁶⁷

2. (2) P.Princ. ii.36 (195–7 ce): a partnership contract for what may have been the collection of some taxes (cf. [ο]ύματ, l. 1), which may have closed in a similar way (ἡ κοινωνία [κυρία ἔστω], ll. 7–8).

3. (3) P.Lond. v.1795 (sixth century ce): a partnership agreement ([ολο]ίανῆς κοινωνείας, l. 14), whose purpose remains unclear but which involved substantial sums of money (χρυσο\ῦ/ νομισμάτια δύο, l. 11; χρῦ νομίματα τρ[ί]α, l. 19).Footnote ⁶⁸

This succinct summary can hardly do justice to the wealth of documentary data available. It should nonetheless be sufficient to demonstrate that κοινωνία could often denote economic partnership. Documentary sources also illustrate that there existed a semantic equivalence between the polysemic and polyvalent terms κοινωνία and societas, whereby, depending on the context, κοινωνία could refer either to societas (in the broad sense of ‘partnership’), or to communio (in the broad sense of ‘shared possession’). This should vindicate Fleury and Sampley's initial intuition that, from a socio-economic and legal perspective, κοινωνία could correspond to the Roman concept of societas, as a number of philologists and legal historians have in fact long recognised.Footnote ⁶⁹ Indeed, since societas pertained to ius gentium (Gaius, Inst. 3.154),Footnote ⁷⁰ the concept of partnership, whether it was expressed in Greek by κοινωνία or μετοχή, could have only been recognised as societas. One can almost be categorical on this point since there existed no other alternative of business association. Throughout the Republican and imperial eras, societas, whose rules hardly evolved,Footnote ⁷¹ remained ‘the only transaction allowing two or more parties to pool their assets for a common purpose’.Footnote ⁷² The fundamental question that remains to be answered, therefore, is whether κοινων- cognates assume a similar socio-economic connotation in Paul's letter to the Philippians.

3. Exegetical Insights on Phil 1.3–11 and 4.14–20

Unlike any other epistles, Paul begins his letter with a direct reference to the κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον he established with the Philippians, his συγκοινωνοὶ τῆς χάριτος (1.7). The mention might have seemed incidental if it did not assume a prominent role in the opening thanksgiving period of 1.3–11, which, as P. Schubert persuasively demonstrated, follows the regular syntactical pattern of Pauline thanksgivings, which generally announce ‘the occasion for and the contents of the letters which they introduce’.Footnote ⁷³ For the sake of conciseness, the exegetical intricacies of 1.3–11 may be passed over. What is more important for us to focus on is the significance of Schubert's proposed reading. If the construction εὐχαριστῶ ἐπί τινι (i.e. τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον here) is indeed that which is ‘most commonly used to express the cause for which thanks are offered’,Footnote ⁷⁴ and if 1.3–11 does function programmatically, then it may be deduced that the Philippians' κοινωνία in the gospel, which was expressed through financial and/or material support (cf. 4.18), provides the main reason for Paul's initial thanksgiving, and, in fact, represents one major motive of the whole letter.Footnote ⁷⁵

Yet what is even more essential for us to determine is the actual connotation of κοινωνία in 1.5. In 1939, Schubert suggested that scholarship was in agreement on the question: ‘All interpreters agree that it means “for your cooperation in the gospel”.’Footnote ⁷⁶ A more recent review of scholarship reveals that opinions in fact differ widely, although many commentators hold that (co-)partnership,Footnote ⁷⁷ cooperation/Mitarbeit,Footnote ⁷⁸ or participation/Teilnahme (in Paul's evangelistic work),Footnote ⁷⁹ is the dominant idea here. It is certainly difficult to see what other sense could be suitable in context. Neither marital union (κ. πρὸς βίου/γάμου), nor political alliance (or community), nor joint participation in cultic activities (κ. τῶν ἱερῶν/θυσιῶν), nor the ownership or lease of assets in common (ἀπὸ/κατὰ/ἐπὶ κ.), appears to make sense. To render κοινωνία by ‘fellowship’ or ‘Gemeinschaft’ is hardly more helpful, for these words evoke a vague notion of togetherness or community. The best semantic alternative therefore seems to be the sense of cooperation or partnership, that is, of mutual involvement in a common enterprise (i.e. the proclamation of the gospel). This option certainly accords well with the subjective genitive ὑμῶν and ‘the critical qualifying phrase’ εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κτλ. (not τοῦ εὐαγγελίου), which, as Gerald W. Peterman and Charles J. Ellicott have aptly suggested, identifies the sphere of application of the κοινωνία (note the telic force of εἰς), rather than its ‘kind’ or ‘character’,Footnote ⁸⁰ and marks the ‘object toward which the κοινωνία [is] directed’.Footnote ⁸¹

Furthermore, this connotation resonates with that of ἐκοινώνησεν (εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως) in 4.15, and, to a lesser extent, with that of συγκοινωνήσαντές (μου τῇ θλίψει) in 4.14, which, in context, further alludes to the Philippians' commitment to assist Paul with the material deprivations (cf. θλῖψις) resulting from his missionary activities.Footnote ⁸² The significance of v. 15 has long puzzled commentators, who have variously interpreted it as an allusion to the Hellenistic principle of the maintenance of the Pneumatiker,Footnote ⁸³ to epistolary exchanges,Footnote ⁸⁴ to the Philippians’ oral response (of faith) to Paul's preaching,Footnote ⁸⁵ or even as an idiom denoting friendship or social reciprocity (do ut des).Footnote ⁸⁶ Yet this λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως may simply be understood as a Graecism of the common Latin expression ratio dati et accepti (cf. the Vulgate),Footnote ⁸⁷ and thus as corresponding to a ledger of receipts and expenditures in which contributions were made (λήμψεις), and from which money could be withdrawn (δόσεις) to cover the costs of Paul's missionary activities.Footnote ⁸⁸ Taking κοινωνέω in the sense of ‘to partner/associate with’ and the prepositional phrase introduced by εἰς as indicating the purpose or sphere of application of the agreed κοινωνία,Footnote ⁸⁹ v. 15 is therefore best understood as evoking the joint establishment and joint administration of a common fund, as was indeed common of societates (cf. Cicero, Verr. 2.2.76, Font. 2; Dig. 3.4.1.1, 17.2.12, 17.2.82).

In v. 18, Paul then finally acknowledges the Philippians’ leitourgia by means of what most rightly recognise as an accounting terminus technicus, the verb ἀπέχω, i.e. ‘to receive what is due’,Footnote ⁹⁰ which immediately gives the impression that the verse is modelled on the formulaic language of ordinary receipts. The great majority of exegetes nonetheless prefer to interpret the term metaphorically, which is not without posing some difficulties.Footnote ⁹¹ Paul has actually received something, which he duly acknowledges. He is not employing the verb metaphorically,Footnote ⁹² if by ‘metaphor’ we mean 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 (traditional view), or a figure of speech whereby a conceptual domain is expressed in terms of another (cognitive linguistic view).Footnote ⁹³

The prevalence of the formulaic use of the first-person singular ἀπέχω in a wide range of documents from Egypt, Judea, Greece and even Italy,Footnote ⁹⁴ and the fact that Paul did not use less technical verbs such as ἔχω/ἔσχον, δέχομαι/δεξάμην, λαμβάνω/ἔλαβον or κομίζομαι/ἐκόμισα, make it unlikely that Paul employed ἀπέχω casually. It is indeed more probable that Paul and the Philippians were well acquainted with the commercial specificity of the term. A similar reasoning may be followed regarding the verb πληρόω, which is usually translated as ‘to be well/amply supplied’,Footnote ⁹⁵ but which, in a large number of documentary sources, has a more specific economic connotation, i.e. ‘to pay in full’.Footnote ⁹⁶

This unusual concentration of commercial terms effectively attributes to Paul's discourse a markedly business resonance and locates it within a particular economic register, which he must have found suitable for the audience.Footnote ⁹⁷ In pragmatic terms, Paul's language creates the strong impression that an actual business transaction has taken place: he has received all of that which was intended for him (by virtue of some obligation) (ἀπέχω πάντα), for he has been paid in full (πεπλήρωμαι, 4.18).Footnote ⁹⁸ Epaphroditus has dutifully performed his leitourgia by delivering the supplies. He may thus be exonerated from any possible allegations of embezzlement and can be warmly commended for having fulfilled his duty at the peril of his life (cf. 2.25–30).

Paul thereby appears to have scrupulously followed the appropriate business conventions of his day in a way that is very suggestive of the socio-economic nature of his κοινωνία with the Philippians. This reveals that he was operating according to a particular socio-economic perspective or model, which he innovatively applied to his relationships with the Philippians who supported his missionary activities.

4. Socio-Economic Analysis of Paul's κοινωνία with the Philippians

This study may be concluded with a succinct socio-economic analysis of Paul's discourse and κοινωνία with the Philippians. Significantly, while commentators have long recognised the economic resonance of 4.15-20, few have explored the socio-economic implications of the passage, preferring to appeal instead to various sociological or socio-theological models.Footnote ⁹⁹ These attempts, however, have hardly elucidated Paul's business terminology and have generally led to an impressionistic characterisation of his relationship with the Philippians. In effect, they have failed to grasp the socio-economic significance of their κοινωνία, which is the interpretive key to their economic exchanges and cooperation in missionary work.

As has been highlighted, documentary sources unequivocally attest to the wide spread of ancient partnerships throughout the Roman world,Footnote ¹⁰⁰ which were often labelled as κοινωνίαι. From a Roman perspective, these would have been treated as a type of societas since societas pertained to ius gentium. There is therefore no reason to doubt that incolae of a Roman colony such as Philippi, whether Roman citizens or not, would not have been cognizant of societas. In fact, they must have been acquainted with its subtleties much better than most of us ever will, which requires that its purpose, characteristics and mechanisms be herein briefly expounded.

While the origins of societas remain uncertain, sources are generally clear on its main objectives and basic characteristics. Its principal aim 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’.Footnote ¹⁰¹ Rather than being based on an ‘antagonism of interests’ between socii,Footnote ¹⁰²societas depended on the fulfilment of mutual obligations which were determined only by consensus (Gaius, Inst. 3.137), i.e. agreement, which could be expressed orally, in writing, or even tacitly.Footnote ¹⁰³ These obligations could relate to ‘un ensemble d'opérations determinées’, or simply to ‘une seule opération’ (una res), since ‘aucun principe ne s'opposait à la limitation de l'objet de leur société’.Footnote ¹⁰⁴

What is particularly important to note is that, contrary to modern forms of partnership, societas could be established for the pursuit of non-capitalist aims and lacked entirely contractual formalism (Gaius, Inst. 3.136). It was initiated and terminated by the mere intention of the socii (Gaius, Inst. 3.135; Dig. 17.2.31), who could dispense with verbal or written formulae (verba and litterae/scripturae). 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’,Footnote ¹⁰⁵ which bound socii to one another. The occurrence of mala fides (‘dishonesty’), fraus (‘fraud’), dolus malus (‘deceit’), or culpa levis (‘minor negligence’),Footnote ¹⁰⁶ on the other hand, granted the right of an actio pro socio (Justinian, Inst. 3.25.9), a legal action which implied ‘an allegation of breach of faith’ that led to condemnation and infamia.Footnote ¹⁰⁷ In other words, the actio rendered the dissolution of the societas effective and definite, since the fides necessary for the good conduct of the partnership was undermined (Dig. 17.2.63.10, 17.2.65 pr.).

This is an important point that Sampley's critics have generally misunderstood.Footnote ¹⁰⁸ A societas was not held together by its legal status. consensus alone was the binding force between the socii. The distinction is subtle yet crucial, for it is counter-intuitive 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 guaranteeing the fulfilment of obligations. Law only played a role when a prejudice occurred which could not be resolved amicably. In other words, an actio ‘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’.Footnote ¹⁰⁹ At most, the actio served as a deterrent against fraudulent behaviour, and would have actually not exposed Paul to greater legal risks than his artisan activities already did.

Within this general framework, four main types of partnership have generally been identified:Footnote ¹¹⁰

1. 1. societas unius rei: a partnership towards a particular, profitable or non-profitable, objective or course of action (cf. Justinian, Inst. 3.25.6; Dig. 17.2.5 pr.);

2. 2. societas alicuius negotiationis (most common): a partnership in any business enterprise (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.148; Justinian, Inst. 3.25 pr.);

3. 3. societas omnium/universorum bonorum quae ex quaestu veniunt: a partnership for all (non-specific) business affairs, which involved a sharing of the revenues thereby generated (cf. Dig. 17.2.7);

4. 4. societas omnium/universorum bonorum (uncommon by 1–250 ce): a partnership whereby all of the partners’ assets were put in common (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.148; Justinian, Inst. 3.25 pr.; Dig. 17.2.1.1, 17.2.1.3.1).

While Paul and the Philippians may have never given thought to this (juristic) classification (it was amply sufficient that they knew the purpose and terms of their societas), it may be useful to determine the category under which their partnership may have fallen. Given the non-commercial character of Paul's κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον and the uncommonness (and inappropriateness) of societas omnium bonorum, Paul's κοινωνία may be best described as a societas unius rei, a partnership whose major non-profitable res was the εὐαγγέλιον, i.e. the proclamation of the gospel.

These basic characteristics having been laid out, it is now possible to conjecture how Paul's κοινωνία with the Philippians may have operated and to reflect upon the potential reasons and significance of this preferred strategy. Although our knowledge of the circumstances leading to the formation and implementation of their κοινωνία is extremely limited, the consensual nature of societas allows one to conclude that both Paul and the Philippians had consented to the partnership, whether expressly or tacitly. Regardless of who took the initiative, both parties fully endorsed the decision to associate, which necessarily implies that Paul actually took a much more proactive and strategic approach towards the organisation and funding of his mission than what has usually been appreciated.

In the light of the basic structure of societas and the evidence of 4.15–20, it can also be deduced that Paul's main obligation to the κοινωνία was to supply his own efforts, time, energy, skills and missionary experience in promoting the gospel, i.e. the ars and opera. The Philippians, on the other hand, were to provide primarily the pecunia, i.e. financial and/or material resources. While this arrangement may seem odd, it was in fact a common distribution of responsibilities among socii, whose contributions need not have been equal or similar (cf. Gaius, Inst. 3.149; Dig. 17.2.5–6, 17.2.52.7; Cicero, Rosc. com. 10.27–12.37; T.Sulpicii 66).Footnote ¹¹¹ The Philippians’ regular contributions acknowledged in 4.16 and 4.18 thus did not constitute friendly gifts (i.e. χαρίσματα, δῶρα, donationes), acts of charity (i.e. ἐλεημοσύναι), or loans (i.e. ἔρανοι, δάνεια, mutua), but corresponded to their capital investment to the account of the societas, the λόγος δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως of 4.15. Paul could have then utilised the funds to pay for the operational and logistical costs of his missionary activities, as he proceeded to fulfil the purpose of their partnership. Hence, his acceptance of their δόμα was neither a denial of his Christ-empowered αὐτάρκεια (cf. 4.11–13), nor a sign of covetousness, in contrast with those who preached the gospel out of envy and personal ambition (1.15–17).Footnote ¹¹² In any case, his heart was not set on the Philippians’ δόμα itself, on personal gains at the detriment of his κοινωνοί, but (ἀλλά) he was eager (ἐπιζητῶ) to bear fruit (καρπός) for the societas (cf. 4.17), that is, to work towards the προκοπή of the gospel (cf. 1.12).

As to the actual reasons for Paul's appropriation of the societas model, they may have been several, though two immediate benefits stand out: (1) the flexible structure of societas itself; 2) the opportunity it afforded him to circumvent what may be broadly described as patronage, and thus to remain free from its social obligations. From a purely socio-economic perspective, societas represented an effective strategy to raise finances by combining Paul's own missionary expertise with the resources of a few individuals, who became his active partners in his mission. Thus, it enabled him to make the most of limited financial and human resources without having to become dependent on wealthier individuals, who, for all intents and purposes, would have assumed a patronage role over him.

From a sociological point of view, the organisational flexibility of societas, its consensual nature and lack of hierarchy, ensured that Paul had a greater degree of freedom and initiative to fulfil the purpose of the κοινωνία as he best saw fit. Whether, as Sampley suggested, Paul adopted societas to cultivate his relationships with the Philippians remains questionable. fides and consensus were prerequisites rather than anticipated benefits of societates, which explains why they were primarily established between members of the same familia or collegium,Footnote ¹¹³ and why we never hear of Paul's κοινωνία with the Galatians or the Corinthians. Nevertheless, and this is perhaps Sampley's greatest insight, Paul may have valued the relative social symmetry, egalitarianism and mutual dependence that societas required of partners, which would have served his innovative agenda to remodel structurally social relations within the ἐκκλησία.Footnote ¹¹⁴ Whatever the case may be, Paul must have found societas to be a legitimate and effective means to sponsor his mission.