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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".