MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330837857 · doi:10.1111/rsr.12339

Paul's Koinonia with the Philippians: A Socio‐Historical Investigation of a Pauline Economic Partnership By Julien M.Ogereau. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II, 377. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Pp. xiv + 592. Paper, €99.00.

2016· article· en· W2330837857 on OpenAlexaff
Richard S. Ascough

Bibliographic record

VenueReligious Studies Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyClassicsTheologyHistoryPhilosophySociologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This richly detailed and carefully argued revised dissertation (Macquarie University) focuses on the economic, particularly accounting, terminology Paul uses in Philippians in light of documentary (rather than literary) sources. Although a number of nouns and verbs are treated in depth in Part I, the key to Ogereau's approach is his broad survey of the use of κωινων-cognates, undertaken in Chapter 5. He draws on a compendium of original texts and translations from 100 inscriptions and 370 papyri (included as Appendix A and B, respectively), that includes contracts, receipts, leases, decrees, honorific inscriptions, and private letters. He concludes that “κωινωνία could correspond to the legal and commercial Roman concept of societas,” thus affirming the position J. Paul Sampley put forth in 1980 (Pauline Partnership in Christ). The letter itself is the focus of Part II, where the “payoff” for all the philological work of Part I comes in Chapter 7, with an exegesis of Phil 1:3–11 and 4:10–20. Ogereau argues persuasively that “Paul employed the term κωινωνία in reference to the strategic economic partnership he established with the Philippians.” The further argument that “they cooperated in his missionary activities by providing material and human resources, while he performed the work of the ministry” will resonate well with most readers, although I find myself slightly less persuaded in this regard. That said, Ogereau is correct in his conclusion that Paul's use of an explicit business model that applies terminology from the commercial sphere to his relationship with fellow Christ-believers and to his missionary activities will startle those who prefer to see Paul framing such things theologically. In the final chapter, Ogereau draws on Roman legal sources to demonstrate that Paul and the Philippians had mutually agreed to form a financial κωινωνία/societas (“partnership”) with a shared objective, in this case, the proclamation of the gospel—a societas evangelii. Throughout the work, Ogereau digs deeply into the secondary material, providing detailed overviews of the history of scholarship on key issues while arguing the nuances of his points judiciously. Overall, this is a monumental study that is highly recommended and deserves wide attention by scholars.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReligious Studies ReviewSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207