Paul Sampley offers a different approach.99 He understands the letter in the context of a formal relationship of partnership rather than mere friendship. His argument is that Paul is in a societas relationship with the Philippians, that is, an unwritten, but nevertheless, formal and legal partnership. Sampley understands that Paul interprets societas in the context of the gospel, but insists that it is the foundation of the relationship between the two parties.
Societas is known to be translated into Greek as koinonia, 100 a word used frequently in the
letter, but Sampley does not rely primarily on semantics for his claim. He starts with a study of a classic model of a consensual societas from a detailed study of Roman legal cases and contemporary literature. He defines consensual societas as: “A prevalent partnership contract of Roman law, where each of the partners contributed something to the association with a view towards a shared goal.”101
In chapter 2 of his book Sampley sets out a model of consensual societas. Such relationships were formed in the image of the partnerships between inheritors, relationships that allowed them to maintain a common estate. On the death of a father the surviving sons
97
Ibid., xlvii.
98
O‟Brien, Philippians, 35-8.
99 J. Paul Sampley, Pauline Partnership in Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).
100 Ibid., 12. This is not a claim to equivalence between the words, but a claim that one possible meaning of
koinonia in certain contexts is societas.
101
did not break up the estate, but continued to share in its benefit and loss. Thus the partners in a societas relationship voluntarily accepted a filial model and relationship.
Sampley identifies thirteen aspects to the societas relationship:
1. The focus was the shared goal. This was often financial, but there could be other goals. 2. Membership was firmly consensual. That the parties agreed to the partnership was the
prime indicator of involvement.
3. There was no written contract and no witnesses were required.
4. Each one contributed to the partnership. Normally they contributed property, land, labour, skill or status.
5. The partners shared all expenses incurred by any party for the sake of the partnership. 6. There was no requirement for any of these to be held in common. This was not a separate
venture with its own property, money or workers. If they were held in common it ceased to be a consensual societas.
7. People of radically different status and economic background could join together in such a partnership. Even slaves could be in partnership with persons of any rank.
8. Within the partnership each partner was equal. One could not coerce the other and each shared in the profits and in the liability. Neither was to advance their interests above those of the other.
9. The aim of the societas could be very short term or could be very long term. 10. The societas was often between two individuals, but there are records of societas
between an individual and a group and between two groups.
11. The societas was considered closed for a number of reasons including: when the aim was achieved; when one or both parties no longer had the goal in common; or when a partner died (although they could be replaced by an heir).
12. The societas was enforceable in the courts. No party was allowed to break the partnership without the losses or profits being equally shared. Indeed the records of
partnerships are often from court cases settling a dispute where one party has attempted either to take all the profits or been left with all the loss.
13. The punishment for breaking the rules of the partnership could be financial, but more often involved the loss of personal standing.102
Fundamental to a societas relationship is the sense of common purpose that underlies the model. They were not in the partnership because of friendship, but because of an
understanding that they could gain something together which could not be gained alone. Because the relationship had no written contract, the sign of partnership was the shaking of hands. This leads Sampley to consider what he regards as Paul‟s account of the Jerusalem Council in Galatians 2.103 Sampley focuses on the sharing of right hands between Paul and the “pillars” in Gal. 2:9, which he takes as signifying agreement. This was a contemporary mark of the forming of societas and for Sampley signifies an agreement of partnership for a common missionary venture to both Jews and gentiles as equals.104
Sampley offers three main reasons for suggesting that Paul and the Philippian community have a societas Christi. Firstly, the receipt Paul writes for the gift or payment that he has received via Epaphroditus. Secondly, the appearance of the word koinonia used in the sense of partnership known in societas and finally, the prominent use of the
terminology of societas.105 The evidence he offers in support of these claims is
predominantly from the thank you note of Philippians 4:10-20.106 Firstly, he identifies the significance of Paul accepting money from a church he had established himself.107 Secondly, he points to the frequent use of commercial technical terms, many of which are hapax
102 Ibid., 11-20.
103 The issues of whether there was one council or two and whether the Pauline account is of the same
meeting as the tone in Acts is not debated by Sampley. There are significant questions about the historicity of Acts 15, but he does not discuss them.
104 Ibid., 41. See: Richard Longenecker, Galatians. WBC. Vol. 41 (Waco: Word, 1990), 58. 105 Sampley, Pauline Partnership, 51.
106 Ibid., 52-60. 107
legomena in the Pauline corpus.108 The prime example he offers is the “technical commercial term apechõ, „I have received‟, so common in papyrus receipts.”109 He argues that other technical phrases, such as eis logon, “in settlement of an account,” doma, “payment,” and
cheria, “request,” are comprehensible if Philippians 4:10-20 is seen as a theologically
modified receipt of payment, not a “thank you” note. The use of technical financial language is comprehensible if Paul is acknowledging that the Philippians have kept their side of the agreement.110 Sampley then points to the way the sense of equality between Paul and the Philippian community is frequently emphasised. He also highlights that the demand for unity in the text is repeated and is stated in the need for a “common mind,” a necessary
prerequisite for societas.111
Peterman offers a strong critique of Sampley in his monograph on the gift Paul received from the Philippians.112 Peterman shows that in Roman culture technical financial terms were used to denote personal relationships.113 Therefore, he questions the claim that technical terms imply a social contract. While he accepts that koinonia may be used to translate societas, he points out that koinonia does not always mean a contractual societas and he quotes instances in Seneca‟s De Beneficiis where this is not the case.114 Finally, he argues that Sampley‟s construction is unnecessarily limiting and offers his own research on reciprocity in Roman society – using De Beneficiis as a guide115 – as a more natural
alternative.116 Peterman is focused in his study on the exchange of gifts and not on the way
108 Ibid., 52-3. 109 Ibid. 110 ibid., 55-61. 111 Ibid., 62-72.
112 Gerald Peterman, Paul’s Gift From Philippi – Conventions of Gift Exchange and Christian Giving SNTS
92 (Cambridge: CUP, 1997),123-7. 113 Ibid., 59-64. 114 Ibid., 126. 115 Ibid., 51. 116
Ibid., 127. He makes four more points questioning the internal logic of Sampley‟s case. He questions if the Philippians have the required unity for such a relationship, the Paul rejects the right to support with the church in Corinth and the right to support would be a right even if the “partner” were considered unworthy. Each of these will be looked at in detail in the next chapter. Fee picks up on the criticisms made by Peterman in two footnotes and adds that there is little hard linguistic evidence as well as pointing out that Capper uses