Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

brill.com/nt

A Survey of Κοινωνία and Its Cognates

in Documentary Sources

Julien M. Ogereau
Berlin

Abstract

This article consists of the summary of a comprehensive survey of the terms κοινωνία,
κοινωνός, and κοινωνέω, in documentary sources (i.e., inscriptions and papyri). Moving
beyond basic semantic questions, it focuses on the usages and pragmatic connota-
tions of these cognates in a wide range of documentary contexts dating between
ca. V BC and AD VII. Thereby it purports to broaden current understandings of the
terms, draw attention to unsuspected or overlooked connotations, and highlight
potentially relevant examples vis-à-vis the NT.

Keywords

κοινωνία – κοινωνός – κοινωνέω – inscriptions – papyri – lexicography – philology

Introduction

The noun κοινωνία and its related cognates, the substantive κοινωνός1 and
the verb κοινωνέω, have long been a subject of interest to philologists, bibli-
cal scholars and theologians. In the 1930s, scholars such as E.P. Groenewald,
J.Y. Campbell, H. Seesemann, and P.J.T. Endenburg, begun to investigate the
use and significance of κοινωνία (and its cognates) in non-biblical literary
sources in order to shed light on difficult NT passages in which the term(s)

1 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.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi 10.1163/15685365-12341485

276 Ogereau

appear(s).2 Initially, emphasis was generally placed on semantic questions as

determined by syntagmatics, without necessarily giving much attention to the
contextual and pragmatic usages of the cognates in the lingua franca, that is, as
found in documentary sources. In more recent decades, the tendency has been
(to attempt) to rediscover the presumed theological significance of κοινωνία
in the NT, especially in the letters of the apostle Paul, who, many have come
to think, developed a particular theological understanding of the term which
he frequently employed to express participation in the gospel, in Christ, in the
Spirit, and in the Eucharist (e.g., 1 Cor 10:16; 2 Cor 13:13).3 Such research has
often been conducted 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,” which has not been without posing
some methodological problems.4
Remarkably, documentary sources have so far been almost entirely neglected,
thereby depriving the scholarly community from a rich source of, potentially,
highly relevant philological materials. Even N. Baumert, who recently com-
pleted what he claims to be eine umfassende semantische Untersuchung of the
primary sources (as his subtitle indicates), examined only a handful of papyri
(27) and inscriptions (10), which were all already known to his predecessors
and which are referenced in standard works such as LSJ, J.H. Moulton and
G. Milligan’s lexicon, or BDAG.5

2 E.P. Groenewald, Κοινωνία (Gemeenskap) bij Paulus (Delft: Meinema, 1932); J.Y. Campbell,
“ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ and Its Cognates in the New Testament,” JBL 51.4 (1932) 352-380; H. Seesemann,
Der Begriff ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ im Neuen Testament (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1933); P.J.T. Endenburg,
Koinoonia en gemeenschap van zaken bij de Grieken in den klassieken tijd (Amsterdam: Paris,
1937). It is impractical to include a full bibliography here. For a comprehensive review of
the history of scholarship, see J.M. Ogereau, Paul’s Koinonia with the Philippians: A Socio-
Historical Investigation of a Pauline Economic Partnership (WUNTII. 377; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2014) 120-150.
3 Some of the most significant contributions are P.C. Bori, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ (Brescia: Paideia,
1972); J.M. McDermott, “The Biblical Doctrine of ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ,” BZ 19 (1975) 64-77, 219-
233; G. Panikulam, Koinōnia in the New Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979);
J. Hainz, Koinonia (Regensburg: Pustet, 1982). For a recent, helpful review of scholarship, see
A.T. Lincoln, “Communion,” Ecclesiology 5 (2009) 135-160.
4 Lincoln, “Communion,” 136. Lincoln’s essay is quite instructive in this regard.
5 See N. Baumert, Koinonein und Metechein—Synonym? (Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelwerk,
2003) 554. His index actually contains a few mistakes: BGU 919 should be read as BGU III 969,
PLond 166 as P.Lond. V 1660, and POxy 1624 as P.Oxy. XIV 1642. SIG 300 (2nd ed.) is the same
inscription as SIG 474 (p. 190) and SIG 646 (3rd ed.), and is more commonly referenced as
IG VII 2225. BGU IV 1037 (p. 266) could have also been added to the list.

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

A Survey of Κοινωνία and its Cognates in Documentary Sources 277

This lacuna in modern scholarship is regrettable and begs for redress. For
documentary sources provide us with valuable insight into popular patterns
of language (e.g., vocabulary, syntax, morphology, phonology), and are usually
more representative of spoken Koine and the language of the NT than liter-
ary sources.6 They also allow us to appreciate more accurately how language
functioned pragmatically and what specific connotations a term could acquire
in various contexts. As regards κοινωνία and its cognates, documentary sources
supply us with a rich collection of practical examples of the terms in some 370
papyri and 100 inscriptions dating from V BC to VII AD. It is naturally beyond
the scope of this article to review in detail all the available evidence and to
explore its significance vis-à-vis the NT.7 Rather, the purpose of this essay is to
offer a summary of the data collected, and to draw attention to a few examples
that could be of immediate relevance to our understanding of κοινων- cognates
in certain NT passages. It should also provide opportunities to underline
hitherto unsuspected or overlooked contextual connotations and usages of the
terms in the lingua franca.

Κοινωνέω in Documentary Sources

In lexica, the term κοινωνέω is usually defined as “to have” or “to do something
in common with someone,” and, by implication, as “to share, to take part/
participate in something in common with someone,” the “something” being
usually expressed by a genitivus rei and the “someone” by a dativus personae.8
The question as to whether “to give a share” (Anteil geben), or “to impart” (mit-
teilen), might be an appropriate connotation, that is, whether κοινωνέω might
be used in the sense of μεταδίδωμι, has also often been discussed in specialised

6 Cf. G.A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (4th rev. ed.; New York: Harper & Brothers,
1927) 227-251; G.H.R. Horsley and J.A.L. Lee, “A Lexicon of the New Testament with
Documentary Parallels,” FilNT 10 (1997) 60; G. Horrocks, Greek (2nd ed.; London: Wiley-
Blackwell, 2010) 114-117, 147-152; F.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.
7 For a comprehensive catalogue of all the data collected, along with translations of the
relevant excerpts and a selective bibliography, see appendices A and B in Ogereau, Paul’s
Koinonia, 351-499.
8 LSJ, s.v. κοινωνέω; MM, s.v. κοινωνέω; F. Hauck, “κοινωνέω,” TDNT 3 (1964) 797-798; BDAG, s.v.
κοινωνέω; L&N, s.v. κοινωνέω.

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

278 Ogereau

literature, though not always very persuasively.9 As far as the documentary

evidence suggests, this sense does not appear to be attested. The connotation
“to take part/participate” is certainly much more frequent, and may have been
as common as the sense “to associate” (i.e., to be a κοινωνός), which is rarely
indicated in lexica,10 but which has been noted by Campbell, Endenburg, and
Baumert.11
In a majority of inscriptions dating between IV BC and AD II, κοινωνέω is
used 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),12 in
athletic or artistic contests,13 or in the politeia of a city.14 Thereby, the genitive
generally identifies either the object of participation or that which is shared or
held in common. The genitive can also sometimes refer to common funds or
treasuries (κ. τῶν κοινῶν χρημάτων/θεμάτων; IDelphes 1.9, ca. 350 BC), a crime
(κ. τῆς πράξιος; IMylasa 3, 355/4 BC), human nature (κ. φύσεως ἀνθρωπίνης;
IGLSyr 1.51, I BC), a professional activity (κ. τοῦ ἐπιτηδεύματος; SEG 56.1359,
AD 133/134), a service or facility (κ. τῆς πορθμείας; ISmyrna 2.712, ca. AD II.), or a
tomb (κ. τῆς σοροῦ πρός τινα; IHierapJ 336, date unknown).
More specifically, the verb can occasionally denote the action of cooperat-
ing or associating in an enterprise of some kind, be it political, commercial,
or otherwise. For instance, in a decree from Mytilene (SEG 3.710, ca. 129 BC), it
alludes to a political and military alliance with Rome (διὰ τὴν . . . πρὸς Ῥωμαίους
εὔνοιάν τε καὶ φιλίαν καὶ . . . συμμαχίαν κοινωνοῦντος τοῦ συνεστῶτος αὐτοῖς ἐν τῆι

9 Cf. Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 367; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ, 4-8; F. Hauck, “κοινωνέω,” TDNT 3
(1964) 797-798, 808-809; BDAG, s.v. κοινωνέω 2. Baumert rejects this possibility, but, rather
surprisingly, accepts “Mitteilung” as the second Hauptbedeutung of κοινωνία. See Baumert,
Koinonein, 43-44, 52-53, 141, 198-226, 241-246.
10 This sense is overlooked in BDAG and L&N, and briefly acknowledged in MM and LSJ (s.v.
κοινωνέω, “b. of partnership in business, BGU 969.13”).
11 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 355-356; Endenburg, Koinoonia, 96-98; Baumert, Koinonein,
46-50.
12 e.g., IKosSegre 149; IMagnMai 33; IG IX 1.32. On the significance of the expression κοινωνία
τῶν ἱερῶν/θυσιῶν, see especially W.S. Ferguson and A.D. Nock, “The Attic Orgeones and the
Cult of Heroes,” HTR 37.2 (1944) 76, 156.
13 e.g., IIlion 1; IDelphes 4.152.
14 e.g., SEG 51.532; SEG 40.394. More common, however, is the phrase μετέχειν τῆς πολιτείας,
“la tournure consacrée et quasi stéréotypée des plaidoyers judiciaires qui débattent du
statut du citoyen.” J. Bordes, Politeia dans la pensée grecque jusqu’à Aristote (Paris: Les
Belles Lettres, 1982) 102.

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

A Survey of Κοινωνία and its Cognates in Documentary Sources 279

Ἀσίᾳ πολέμου, ll. 9-12),15 while in Alexander the Great’s letter to the Chians
(SIG 283, 334/3-332 BC), it refers to allied Greek cities sharing in the peace,
i.e., joining the Corinthian league (τῶν πόλεων τῶν τῆς εἰρήνης κοινωνουσῶν,
ll. 12-13).16 The sense “to associate” is observed in non-political contexts as well,
such as in IEph 1a.4, the law on the liquidation of debts after the war between
Demetrius and Lysimachus around 297-296 BC, wherein a rare substantival
participial form of προσκοινωνέω, τοῦ προσκοινωνοῦντος, is used to express the
contractual agreement (cf. ὁμολογέω, ll. 24, 25) between creditors and land-
holders concerning debt remissions and re-allocations 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. (ll. 27-28).17 Similarly, in the arbitration treaty between Temnos and
Klazomenai (SEG 29.1130 bis, ca. 200-150 BC), city delegates are instructed not
to partner in lawsuits: [μήτε ἄλλης?] κοινωνεῖ δίκης μηδεμιᾶς (frag. B, ll. 15-17);18
while on an inscription from the Syrian basilica of Houeidjit Halaoua, two
benefactors proudly record their collaboration in financing the mosaic floor:
ἐκοινώνηαν ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ τούτῳ (SEG 40.1380 bis, AD 471).19
This latter connotation is also frequently observed in papyri, even though
the verb remains rather scarce overall. In documents relating to tax-farm-
ing concessions, such as the tax-revenue laws of Ptolemy II Philadelphus
(P.Rev., 259/8 BC), associate tax-farmers, who are also identified as κοινωνοί
(cf. col. 10, l. 5; col. 18, l. 2), are once designated as those who have partnered

15 Note the mention of φιλία and συμμαχία, two key terms in Roman foedus phraesology.
Cf. S. 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.
16 Cf. Demosthenes, Or. 7.30: τοὺς κοινωνοῦντας τῆς εἰρήνης; [Or.]17.6: τοῖς τῆς εἰρήνης
κοινωνοῦσι.
17 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. For a discussion of this complex
law, see D. Asheri, “Leggi greche sul problema dei debiti,” SCO 18 (1969) 42-44, 108-114.
For similar participial usages of κοινωνέω, see Demosthenes’ Or. 7.30 (τοὺς κοινωνοῦντας
τῆς εἰρήνης), Or. 37.38 (οἱ κοινωνοῦντες μετάλλου), 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).
18 Cf. κοινωνοὶ τῆς δίκης (l. 40). On possible restorations for this inscription, see F. Piejko,
“Textual Supplements to the New Inscriptions concerning Temnos,” MDAI (I) 36 (1986)
95-97.
19 Cf. ed.pr. P. Donceel-Voûte, Les pavements des églises byzantines de Syrie et du Liban
(Louvain-la-Neuve: Département d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie Collège Erasme,
1988) 147.

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

280 Ogereau

with the chief contractor (ἀρχώνης) in the tax-farming concession (ὠνή):

τῶν τι κοινωνούντων . . . τῆ[ι ὠ]νῆι (col. 22, ll. 2-3). Similarly, in P.Lond. V 1660
(ca. AD 553), tax-collectors are said to partner together for half a share of all the
profits and expenses in the concession: καθὰ προεῖπον ἐπὶ τ̣ῷ̣ ἐ[ν πᾶσ]ι ̣ κοινωνεῖν
καὶ συμμετέχειν σοι εἰς τὸ ἐπιβάλλον σοι μέρος κατὰ τὸ ἥμισυ (ll. 18-19). In this
instance, the seemingly redundant collocation of κοινωνεῖν and συμμετέχειν
rather suggests that the two terms could be used as practical synonyms.20
This sense is not restricted to tax-farming partnerships, however, and is
applied to different kinds of joint-business venture as well. For example, in
a number of agricultural leases, κοινωνέω, or the compound ἐπικοινωνέω,21 is
frequently employed in the customary οpening formula indicating the inten-
tion of the associates to contract a lease in partnership: βουλόμεθα/ὁμολογοῦμεν
ἑκουσίως καὶ αὐθαιρέτως (ἐπι)κοινωνεῖν/(ἐπι)κοινωνῆσαι κατὰ τὸ ἥμισυ/τρίτον
μέρος κτλ. In SB XVI 13008 (AD 144), for instance, two men agree to partner
to lease (from a third party) a date and olive grove according to a third share:
βουλόμε[θα] κοινωνή[σ]ειν σο̣ι ̣ἕκασ̣ το̣ ̣ς ̣ [ἡ]μῶν κ̣ α̣τὰ̣ τ̣ὸ̣� τρ̣ίτ̣�̣ [ον μέρ]ο̣ς ̣ κτλ. (ll. 7-9).22
Allusions to similar types of partnerships may be found in a number of other
papyri, such as the memorandum of a judge (τῆς κτηνοτροφία[ς] ἧς ἐκοινώνουν;
BGU III 969, AD 142),23 the private letter P.Brem. 11 (AD 117-118), or the petition
P.Mert. II 91 (AD 316).
Less frequently, κοινωνέω is encountered as denoting complicity in crimi-
nal behaviour, such as in one of Severus’ rescripts (ll. 45-51, P.Col. VI 123;
AD 199-200),24 or as referring to the joint ownership of some property, such

20 For a similar collocation, see IMylasa 3 (355/4 BC): εἴ τις καὶ ἄλλος μετέ[σ]χεν ἢ ἐκοινώνησεν
τῆς πράξιος κτλ. (l. 10). The two verbs are also used interchangeably, it seems, in the
expressions κοινωνεῖν/μετέχειν τῆς πολιτείας/τᾶς θυσίας. Cf. MM, s.v. κοινωνέω.
21 From a pragmatic perspective, 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 an
enterprise. Cf. LSJ, s.v. κοινωνέω; s.v. ἐπικοινωνέω; Preisigke, Wörterbuch 1:558; Endenburg,
Koinoonia, 100-101.
22 See also P.Stras. V 362 (AD 149-150); P.Köln II 101 (AD 274-280); P.Oxy. X 1280 (AD IV).
23 The context is quite evasive and it is not entirely clear whether this κτηνοτροφία consisted
of a liturgy or a cattle-rearing business. See S.R. Llewelyn, ed., New Documents Illustrating
Early Christianity, 8 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 87-90, #5.
24 ll. 49-51: πρὸς δὲ Ἀπίωνα τὸν τελώνην, εἰ μὴ κοινωνῖ τῶν ἐνκλημ̣ [ά]των Κόμωνι, τὸν ἡγούμενον
τοῦ [ἔ]θνους ἕξε̣ις δικα̣[σ]τήν; i.e., 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., the
prefect of Egypt) as judge.

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

A Survey of Κοινωνία and its Cognates in Documentary Sources 281

as in the record of court proceedings P.Oxy. XLIII 3117 (AD 235).25 Even rarer
are instances in which it evokes social interaction, such as in P.Gron. 17 and
P.Got. 12 (AD III-IV).26 Overall, in contrast with inscriptions, in which the sense
of political alliance and of participation in sacrifices and/or festivals predomi-
nates, it is the practical connotation of partnering or associating in some kind
of enterprise that stands out from the papyrological sources, which is sugges-
tive of the most common connotation of the term in popular speech.
Understandably, a detailed analysis as to how these various examples could
shed light on the use of the verb in the NT cannot be carried out here. It may be
simply observed that documents such as P.Köln II 101 (ἐπικοινωνήσιν ἀλλήλοις
εἰς ἐργασίαν βρυτανικῆς τέχνης, ll. 7-10; AD 274-280), P.Oxy. X 1280 (ἐπικοινωνῖν
σοι εἰς τὸν ψυκτῆρα τοῦ καμηλῶνος, ll. 4-7; AD IV), P.Lond. V 1794 (κοινωνεῖν
ἀλλήλοις ε̣[ἰ]ς τὴν προειρημένην τεχνὴν ὠ�̣ πωρώνην, ll. 7-8; AD 487), or P.Lond. V
1660 (κοινωνεῖν καὶ συμμετέχειν σοι εἰς τὸ ἐπιβάλλον σοι μέρος κατὰ τὸ ἥμισυ, ll. 18-19;
AD 553), offer illuminating comparative examples that may help explain Paul’s
unusual clause ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως in Phil 4:15. In such
instances, the collocation of (ἐπι)κοινωνέω with a participial phrase introduced
by the telic preposition εἰς, which indicates the purpose or sphere of applica-
tion of the agreed partnership, is particularly suggestive of the likely meaning
of the expression in Phil 4:15, wherein, in context, Paul alludes to his associat-
ing with the Philippians to an account of receipts (λήμψεις) and expenditures
(δόσεις).27

25 ll. 4-6: Δημήτρ\ι ̣/ος ῥ(ήτωρ) εἶ(πεν), καὶ χθὲς ὑπερέθετο, πῇ μὲν λέγων κοινωνῖν \αὐτῷ/
ὀρφανοὺς καὶ προσήκειν αὐτοὺς παρεῖναι το̣ὺ̣�\ς/̣ μήτε δικαζομένους μή�̣ τε 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.’ ”
26 P.Gron. 17: ἵνα ὁμιλίας ἢ καὶ γνώμης σοι περὶ τῶν κατὰ σὲ κοινωνήσωμεν κτλ. (ll. 12-14), i.e., so
that we may have a conversation and also share (our) mind with you about these matters
etc.; P.Got. 12: καὶ αἰσθέσθωσαν, ὅτι ἐνθάδε̣ ε̣ἰμ̣�̣ ὶ �̣ [ἕν]εκεν ἑτέρων πραγμάτων κ[αὶ] οὐ κ[οι]νωνῶ
πρός τινα, ἵνα ἀ�̣μέριμ̣ [νο]ς ὦ κτλ. (ll. 18-21), i.e., 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 etc.
On this connotation, see Endenburg, Koinoonia, 78-80.
27 For a more detailed discussion of the significance of the phrase εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ
λήμψεως, see J.M. Ogereau, “The Earliest Piece of Evidence of Christian Accounting:
The Significance of the Phrase εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως (Phil 4:15),” Comptabilité(S)
(forthcoming). Cf. Ogereau, Paul’s Koinonia, 78-104, 270-289.

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

282 Ogereau

Κοινωνός in Documentary Sources

As a nominal derivative of the adjective κοινός,28 the substantive κοινωνός

poses little difficulty and is generally defined in lexica as “someone who has
something in common with someone else”, or as “someone who takes part in
something with someone else” (i.e., a companion, partner).29 As with κοινωνέω,
κοινωνός can be employed with a genitivus rei and a dativus personae, though
these are often omitted when they are implied by the context. It is also usually
admitted that the term can adopt more specific connotations depending on
the context and the activity or thing that is shared (e.g., a business partner,
associate tax-farmer, life-partner, accomplice),30 which reinforces the impor-
tance of context over syntagmatics in determining its various possible seman-
tic nuances. Significantly, the term is never employed in a particular religious
sense,31 except in Montanist inscriptions, which is a strong indicator that, in
contrast with later patristic texts, the term was not thought to have any intrin-
sic theological connotation at first.32 The polyvalence of κοινωνός is also gen-
erally recognised and is attested in a wide range of documentary sources, in
which the term most commonly refers to an associate in some kind of com-
mercial enterprise, in some professional activity, in a civic office, or in a liturgy.
Once again, it is not possible to review in detail all of the available evidence,
which, in this case, is rather substantial and repetitive. A mere summary

28 Cf. P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (vol. 1; Paris: Klincksieck,

1968) 552; H. von Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (vol. 1; 2nd ed.; Heidelberg:
Carl Winter Universität, 1973) 893; R. Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek (vol. 1;
Leiden: Brill, 2010) 731.
29 Preisigke, Wörterbuch 1:815-816; LSJ, s.v. κοινωνός; MM, s.v. κοινωνός; F. Hauck, “κοινωνός,”
TDNT 3 (1964) 797; BDAG, s.v. κοινωνός; L&N, s.v. κοινωνός. Cf. Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 353;
Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ, 19-20.
30 Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ, 20-23; Endenburg, Koinoonia, 26-46.
31 The term may have been used in the sense of participant (in sacrifices) in the libellus
BGU I 287 (AD 250). However, as Moulton and Milligan have rightly noted, “the reading
is doubtful,” very doubtful indeed. See MM, s.v. κοινωνός. Neither is there need to see a
particular theological connotation in the late partnership contract P.Cair.Masp. II 67158
(AD 568), in which associate carpenters are described as συνκοινωνοί and συμπραγματευταὶ
τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ προνοίᾳ (l. 11). In context, the substantive τῇ προνοίᾳ is to be understood as
an instrumental dative, rather than as referring to the spiritual blessing that the κοινωνοί
might have partaken of (in which case a partitive genitive would have been expected).
32 Cf. PGL, s.v. κοινωνός; W. Popkes, “Gemeinschaft,” RAC 9 (1976) 1133-1146; L.-M. Dewailly,
“Communio-Communicatio,” PSPT 54 (1970) 54-55.

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

A Survey of Κοινωνία and its Cognates in Documentary Sources 283

highlighting patterns of use or overlooked connotations will simply be offered

in what follows.
Out of the three cognates under scrutiny, κοινωνός is the most frequently
encountered in documentary sources and often bears a certain socio-economic
connotation. In inscriptions, it is attested from as early as IV BC on horos stones
(e.g., SEG 19.181; IG II2 2502), and on inscribed building contracts (IG V 2.6;
IG XII 9.191), in which it identifies associate entrepreneurs involved in con-
struction work. From the Roman period onwards (AD I-II), the term refers
more specifically to a socius involved in a societas publicanorum, that is, a pub-
licanus. This is made evident by several epitaphs from Asia Minor such as IEph
2245 or IIasos 2.416,33 which make mention of the κοινωνοί in charge of the 5%
manumission tax and of the portoria (i.e., customs tax).34
More generally, κοινωνός could be used to designate any kind of associate,
be it a political ally (e.g., κ. δήμου Ῥωμαίων; IG II² 3299, AD 129-138), a partner
in a legal action (e.g., κ. τῆς δίκης; SEG 29.1130 bis, frag. B, 200-150 BC), some-
one sharing the use of a tomb (e.g., Mon.fun.Palmyre IFC 40, AD 237; IGLSyr
4.1977, AD 478), or an associate in an undetermined business enterprise (e.g.,
SEG 20.92, ca. AD II; INikaia 1210, imperial era). It is also occasionally found
to refer to a (deceased) life-partner (e.g., SEG 49.1788; IKlaudiop 84; both late
imperial era), a member of a collegium (e.g., IGBulg 1.79 bis, ca. mid-II BC), or a
Montanist cleric (IMont 80, 84, 85; ca. AD IV-VI.).35
The versatility of the term in inscriptions is hardly surprising, and accords
with that observed in literary sources and papyri. In contrast with inscriptions,
however, κοινωνός never stands for a publicanus in papyri (since societas publi-
canorum did not operate in Egypt),36 even though it does frequently designate
an associate official involved in the collection and administration of (mainly

33 See also IIasos 2.417; ILS 1862; SEG 39.1180 (ll. 81, 119).
34 It is generally agreed that these κοινωνοί were publicani. See J. and L. Robert, BE (1964) 158-
159, #160; F. Dürrbach and G.A. Radet, “Inscriptions de la Pérée rhodienne,” BCH 10 (1886)
267-269; E.L. Hicks, “Iasos,” JHS 8 (1887) 113; H.J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions
(Toronto: Hakkert, 1974) 61.
35 The origin and significance of the title remains unclear, though it is now mostly agreed
that such κοινωνοί were some kind of clergy officials, i.e., either some financial benefactors
and/or administrators, or some regional bishops (cf. κ. κατὰ τόπον in IMont 84 and 85).
See A. Strobel, Das heilige Land der Montanisten (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980) 267-274;
V.-E. Hirschmann, Horrenda secta (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2005) 123-138; W. Tabbernee,
“Montanist Regional Bishops,” JECS 1.3 (1993) 249-280.
36 See S.L. Wallace, Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (New York: Greenwood,
1969) 286-335; P.A. Brunt, “The Administrators of Roman Egypt,” in Roman Imperial
Themes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990) 235-243.

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

284 Ogereau

grain) taxes (e.g., κ. σιτολόγοι/ἀπαιτηταί/σιτομέτραι/ἐπιμεληταί).37 Interestingly,

in P.Rev. (259/8 BC), it is used interchangeably with μέτοχος (cf. col. 34, ll. 10-21)
to refer to a partner in the tax-farming concession (col. 10, l. 5), which is indica-
tive of the way the two substantives may sometimes be employed as practical
synonyms.38
In many other documents, κοινωνός identifies associate officials or liturgists,
such as κωμάρχαι, i.e., village elders (e.g., P.Sakaon 22, 24, 25, 51; AD 324-327),
πρεσβύτεροι (e.g., P.Gen. I 41, AD 223; P.Oxy. XIX 2243 A, AD 590), δεκάπρωτοι,
i.e., decemprimi, to whom the σιτολόγοι were subordinated (e.g., O.Mich. I 454
and II 899, AD 296), δεκανοί, i.e., chief watchmen (e.g., P.Oxy. XIV 1626, AD 325),
νομικοί, i.e., jurists or notaries (P.Oxy. XLVIII 3390, AD 358), or διαδόται, i.e.,
army suppliers (BGU III 974, AD 380; SPP VIII 1192, AD V). In all these instances,
the use of the term suggests that the persons concerned were related through
a collegiality of office (rather than a partnership agreement), and may have in
fact been members of the same collegium.39
Slightly less common are documents in which κοινωνός refers to a partner in
some agricultural or commercial entreprise, whose exact nature is sometimes
difficult to determine due to the lacunose state of the documents and/or the
lack of precise contextual information. However, it is possible to gain a reason-
ably clear understanding of the situation in most cases, such as in the well-
known letter BGU II 530 (AD I),40 the cheirographon P.Flor. III 370 (AD 132),41

37 e.g., SB XVIII 13134; SB X 10293; P.Col. VII 136, 137, 141. The term is often abbreviated as
κοιν or κοι. On the role of σιτολόγοι and similar administrators, see F. Oertel, Die Liturgie
(Aalen: Scientia, 1965) 204-208, 214-222, 250-257; J. Lallemand, L’administration civile de
l’É gypte de l’avènement de Dioclétien à la création du diocèse (284-382) (Bruxelles: Palais des
Académies, 1964) 206-216.
38 The collocation of the two terms is also relatively frequent. See SB XXIV 15920 (AD 87/103?):
μετόχ(ου) Ἀρείο(υ) σιτομ(έτρου) <καὶ> \κοινω(νῶν)/ (l. 105); SEG 20.92 (ca. AD II): κοινωνοῖς
καὶ μετόχοις τοῖς μετὰ Νέωνος Νοῦ ἅπασιν (ll. 7-8); O.Bodl. II 1077 (AD I-II): μ(έτοχοις)
τελώ(ναις) κοινώ(νοις) (ll. 1-2). Cf. U. Wilcken, Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien
(vol. 1; Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient, 1899) 539; Oertel, Liturgie, 251.
39 Cf. Oertel, Liturgie, 146, 211, 221; Lallemand, L’administration, 208, 215-216.
40 Writing to his son, a certain Hermokrates complains that his κοινωνός has abandoned him
and that, as a result, his property has been neglected: Ὁ κοινωνὸς ἡμῶν οὐ συνηργάσατο,
ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ μὴν τὸ ὕδρευμα ἀνεψήσθη, ἄλλως τε καὶ ὁ ὑδραγωγὸς συνεχώσθη ὑπὸ τῆς ἄμμου καὶ
τὸ κτῆμα ἀγεώργητόν ἐστιν (ll. 14-22), 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.
41 The two Roman men agree to partner and sublet a plot of public land on half-shares,
sharing equally all taxes and labour costs: [Ὁ]μολογῶ ἔσασθαί σοι κοινωνὸς κατὰ τὸ ἥμισυ

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

A Survey of Κοινωνία and its Cognates in Documentary Sources 285

or the fragmentary lease BGU IV 1123 (30 BC-AD 14), in which the lessees agree
to become με[τό]χ̣ους καὶ κοινωνούς (l. 4) in order to cultivate a parcel of land in
common. On other occasions, the term stands for people who own properties
in common pro diviso (divided) or pro indiviso (undivided), whether it be some
land, a house (or share thereof), or even slaves.42
It should be noted that, on the whole, both in inscriptions and in papyri,
persons designated as κοινωνοί are usually understood to be tied by certain
socio-economic and legal obligations, which could sometimes be brought to
bear in official litigations, as is illustrated in P.Oxy. XXII 2342 (AD 102).43 This
sense of obligation is not so much derived from the lexical meaning of κοινωνός
itself, but is implied by the contractual nature of the documents themselves
and the agreements settled therein. This observation should not be taken too
far, however, for in many cases it is not possible to discern the implicit socio-
economic and legal obligations binding κοινωνοί, who may have simply been
sharing the same professional activity as members of a collegium.44
This being said, these documents provide instructive examples of the com-
mon usage of the term in documentary sources, examples which should not be
left out of consideration when reading passages such as Luke 5:10, 2 Cor 8:23,
Phlm 17, or even Phil 1:7. Such documentary examples are indeed particularly
suggestive of the way in which Paul perceived some of his collaborators to be
much more than mere travelling companions, but, effectively, close associates
who shared in the burden of responsibilities, labour, costs, and benefits of his
mission.

μέρος γεωργίας (ll. 2-3), i.e., I agree to be your partner for (the cultivation of ) a half share of
(arable) land.
42 e.g., P.Mich. V 354 (AD 52); P.Oxy. XLIX 3468 (AD I); P.Fam.Tebt. 23 (AD 123); P.Oxy. XLV
3242 (AD 185-187).
43 The case is rather complex and need not be examined in detail here. Suffice it to mention
that the plaintiff, a wine merchant, appeals for redress to the prefect of Egypt on the basis
of his business partnership with his former κοινωνός and δανειστής (ll. 4-5), whose heir and
successor he accuses of fraud. For a discussion of the case, see P. van Minnen, “Berenice,
A Business Woman from Oxyrhynchus,” in The Two-Faces of Graeco-Roman Egypt (eds.
A.M.F.W. Verhoogt and S.P. Vleeming; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 59-70; É. Jakab, “Berenike vor
Gericht,” Tyche 16 (2001) 63-85.
44 See for instance the pork butchers of PSI III 202 (ca. AD 338), or the carpet weavers of
P.Leid.Inst. 62 (AD 370-400). This remark may also apply to the two tanners or leather
dealers of PSI V 465 (AD 264/268), the shepherds of P.Erl.Diosp. 2 (AD 314), or the sawyers
of P.Oxy. XIV 1752 (AD 378).

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

286 Ogereau

Κοινωνία in Documentary Sources

Perhaps more than any of its related cognates, κοινωνία is the term that has
received the most attention from scholars, who, as was noted before, have not
always approached the question of its significance without any preconceived
idea or theological agenda.45 The term is actually not very well defined in
standard lexica, which tend to list glosses of its various connotations encoun-
tered (primarily) in literary sources.46 Only in BDAG and L&N can fairly suit-
able (and rather similar) definitions be found: “1. close association involving
mutual interests and sharing” (BDAG), and “an association involving close
mutual relations and involvement” (L&N).47 Yet, it is perhaps the definition
provided by Campbell that best encapsulates the basic lexical meaning of the
word: “Kοινωνία is primarily the abstract noun corresponding to κοινωνός and
κοινωνεῖν, and its meaning therefore is ‘(the) having something in common
with someone’,” which, effectively, evokes both “ideas of participation and of
association.”48 While Campbell’s (and Seesemann’s) emphasis on participation
(Teilhabe/Teilnahme) has drawn some criticism from Baumert,49 this nonethe-
less offers a good working definition, in the light of which the various usages of
the term in documentary sources may be examined. The issue of κοινωνία’s typ-
ical syntagmatic relations is slightly more complex, but need not distract us at
this point. Suffice it to say that, in addition to being found with a dative of per-
son and various prepositional phrases,50 κοινωνία is perhaps most commonly
employed either with a partitive genitive, a subjective genitive, or, a genitive
of person (in lieu of a dative of person).51 The latter alternative, Campbell and

45 For instance, Seesemann’s conclusion that, despite its “profan” origin, κοινωνία is used
by Paul as “ein religiöser Terminus” makes one immediately suspicious. Seesemann,
ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ, 99-100.
46 e.g., Preisigke, Wörterbuch 1:815; LSJ, s.v. κοινωνία; MM, s.v. κοινωνία; F. Hauck, “κοινωνία,”
TDNT 3 (1964) 798.
47 BDAG, s.v. κοινωνία; L&N, s.v. κοινωνία. The second and third definitions (and glosses)
provided in BDAG, i.e., “2. attitude of good will that manifests an interest in a close
relationship, generosity, fellow-feeling, altruism,” and “3. abstr. for concr. sign of fellowship,
proof of brotherly unity, even gift, contribution,” and the (mainly) biblical examples
adduced in support of those (i.e., Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 9:13; Phil 2:1; Heb 13:16), are more
questionable.
48 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 356 (italics original).
49 Baumert, Koinonein, 141-142.
50 See especially Baumert, Koinonein, 189-192.
51 Campbell, “KOINΩNIA,” 357; Seesemann, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ, 11-19. Baumert suggests that
objective, possessive, and qualitative genitives, as well as genitives of relationship, are
also possible. See Baumert, Koinonein, 141-145.

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

A Survey of Κοινωνία and its Cognates in Documentary Sources 287

Seesemann thought, is very rare, but, as Baumert has rightly pointed out, and
as a survey of the documentary sources confirms, it is in fact quite common.52
Just as κοινωνέω, κοινωνία is frequently used in inscriptions to express partic-
ipation in contests (κ. τῶν ἀγώνων),53 and in cultic activities or sacrifices (κ. τῶν
θυσιῶν/σπονδῶν/ἱερῶν),54 and, occasionally, participation in civic activities
such as the holding of assizes (κ. τῆς ἀγοραίας),55 or the Panhellenion (κ. τοῦ
Πανελληνίου/τοῦ συνεδρίου τῶν Πανελλήνων).56 It can also refer to marital union
(πρὸς γάμου κ.),57 a cultic association,58 or even a community.59 In civic decrees,
such as P.Schøyen I 25, the treaty between Rome and the Lycians (φιλί|[α καὶ
συμμαχία κ]α̣ὶ κ., ll. 6-7; 46 BC), or the Res Gestae Divi Augusti (πρεσβειῶν καὶ
φιλίας κ., col. 6, ll. 8-11; CIG 4040, ca. AD 19),60 κοινωνία can acquire the more spe-
cific connotation of political alliance or community. This connotation is also
observed in later imperial letters from Severus to Aphrodisias and Nicopolis ad
Istrum (IAphrodArchive 18 and IGBulg 2.659; AD 198).61

52 Baumert, Koinonein, 173-175.

53 e.g., C.A. Boethius, “Excavations at Mycenae,” ABSA 25 (1921-1923) 408-415.
54 e.g., J.H. Oliver, “The Sacred Gerusia,” HesperiaSup 6 (1941) 125-141, #31 (ca. AD 230);
SEG 4.247, 250, 255 (ca. II BC to AD II).
55 e.g., SEG 28.1566 (ca. AD 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);
J. Reynolds, “Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and the Cyrenaican Cities,” JRS 68 (1978) 111-121.
56 e.g., SEG 29.127 (ca. AD 174/5). Cf. ed.pr. J.H. Oliver, “Marcus Aurelius,” HesperiaSup 13 (1970)
1-168; C.P. Jones, “A New Letter of Marcus Aurelius to the Athenians,” ZPE 8 (1971) 161-183;
S. Follet, “Lettre de Marc-Aurèle aux Athéniens (EM 13366),” RPh 105 (1979) 29-43.
57 e.g., IPriene 109 (ca. 120 BC); CIL III 14184.9 (Roman era).
58 See, for instance, the dedication to Zeus Megas Sarapis by an unidentified κοινωνία (IRT
310, ca. AD II-III), or that to Priapos by a κοινωνία Λαμψακίων (IG XIV.102, date unknown),
if indeed it is genuine (cf. CIG 5960). Cf. F. Prêteux, “Priapos Bébrykès dans la Propontide
et les détroits,” REG 118 (2005) 252 n. 34.
59 e.g., IDidyma 159 (ca. AD 287-293).
60 The translation of commercium as κοινωνία is rather awkward here. The Latin version
notwithstanding, in context the expression κοινωνία φιλίας is probably best understood as
alluding to a political partnership, i.e., literally, an alliance of friendship (cf. Demosthenes,
Or. 9.28: κοινωνίαν βοηθείας καὶ φιλίας οὐδεμίαν ποιήσασθαι).
61 The texts are rather convoluted, but in context it is quite clear that κοινωνία makes
reference to the joint-rule of the emperor with his two sons Caracalla and Geta. See
IAphrodArchive 18 (l. 3): ἔπρεπεν εὐφρανθῆναι τῆς πατρῴας κοινωνίας εἰς ἐμὲ Ἀντωνεῖνον
ἡκούσης [. . . ] κτλ., i.e., 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.; IGBulg
2.659 (ll. 24-31): οὕτως ἐδηλώσατε τοῖς | παροῦσιν . . . ἐπὶ . . . ἡμῶν ἐ[ν]| δικαίαι κοινωνίαι
συνεζευγμένων, καίσαρα ‖ ἐχόντων οἰκεῖον καὶ γνήσιον, i.e., so you have plainly rejoiced in the

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

288 Ogereau

Less common, but no less interesting, are inscriptions in which κοινωνία

denotes partnership in some kind of business enterprise, or even a commercial
organisation.62 Particularly intriguing are references to Zenon and Androklos’
κοινωνία of flax and seeds on pottery fragments from the Nymphaeum of
Kafizin in rural Cyprus (IKafizin 119, 217, 219, and 265; ca. 225 BC).63 While the
socio-economic setting in which this κοινωνία operated, and the exact nature of
its activities, remain uncertain and debated,64 it is quite clear that it consisted
of some sort of commercial organisation.65 Just as noteworthy is an inscribed
senatus consultum found in Thisbae (Boeotia), which makes mention of the
κοινωνία περὶ σίτου καὶ ἐλαίου that the city formed with an Italian negotiator
(ll. 53-56, IG VII 2225; 170 BC). Without precise contextual information, it is
difficult to determine the legal and economic nature of this κοινωνία, though
it is most likely that it consisted of a societas (i.e., an economic partnership),
whereby the negotiator was contracted by the Thisbaeans to supply the occu-
pying Roman army with grain and oil.66

present (circumstances) . . . because of . . . our joining together in a righteous partnership,

having a Caesar (i.e., Geta) who is legitimate and from our house.
62 The best survey of this use of the term in literary sources remains Endenburg, Koinoonia.
63 This κοινωνία is unlikely to have consisted of a professional and/or cultic association,
since such groups were more commonly called κοινά, θίασοι, σύνοδοι, ἔρανοι, etc., and
were usually identified by their activities (rather than by the name of their patrons).
See F. Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens (Leipzig: Teubner, 1909) 5-172;
J.S. Kloppenborg, “Collegia and Thiasoi,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-
Roman World (London: Routledge, 1996) 16-29; I. Dittmann-Schöne, Die Berufsvereine
in den Städten des kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasiens (Regensburg: Roderer, 2001) 15-25;
C. Zimmermann, Handwerkervereine im griechischen Osten des Imperium Romanum
(Mainz: Römisch-germanisches Zentralmuseum, 2002) 23-45.
64 The ed.pr., T.B. Mitford, surmised that the family business operated both as a wholesaler
and a tax-farming company. T.B. Mitford, The Nymphaeum of Kafizin (Berlin: De Gruyter,
1980) 256-260. But see J. Bingen, “Review of T.B. Mitford, The Nymphaeum of Kafizin,”
CE 57 (1982) 170-173; J. Pouilloux, “Le dernier livre de T.B. Mitford,” RPh 108 (1982) 99-103.
65 Cf. O. Masson, “À propos des inscriptions chypriotes de Kafizin,” BCH 105 (1981) 627, 630;
H.W. Pleket and R.S. Stroud in SEG 30.1608.
66 This interpretation is debated, but, for reasons that cannot be elaborated in detail here,
most likely. It is indeed improbable that this κοινωνία consisted of the lease (μίσθωσις)
of Thisbean public land, since it had become ager publicus in 170 BC when the city
had surrendered to the Romans. See M.P. Foucart, “Rapport sur un sénatus-consulte
inédit de l’année 170 relatif à la ville de Thisbé, ” ArchMiss 7 (1872) 331, 370; T. Mommsen,
“XV. S.C. de Thisbaeis A.V.C. DLXXXIV,” Ephemepi 1 (1872) 297; MM, s.v. κοινωνία (IG VII
2225 referenced as Syll 300); C. Nicolet, L’ordre équestre à l’époque républicaine (312-43 av.
J.-C.) (vol. 1; Paris: De Boccard, 1974) 348.

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

A Survey of Κοινωνία and its Cognates in Documentary Sources 289

Even more peculiar are the following usages of the word in funerary inscrip-
tions such as ISeleukia 148 (σπηλεοκοινωνίας τινος, ll. 2-3; AD 325),67 IHadrianoi
71 (συνε|χώρησα . . . τὴν εἰς | αἰῶνα κοινωνείαν, ll. 7-10; ca. AD II-III), and IKilikiaBM
2.201, which features the rules of a burial society (κοινωνε[ί]|αν ἑ[αυτοῦ θέλῃ π]
ωλῆσαι, ll. 18-19; ca. AD I). In the latter two instances, it is quite clear that, rather
than denoting “common ownership,” κοινωνία assumes the more concrete
sense of “a share” of the tomb, which could be bought or sold. In IKilikiaBM
2.201, κοινωνία is actually the direct object of the verb πωλέω, which is most
unusual and otherwise unattested in literary and documentary sources.
In papyri (just as in literary sources),68 κοινωνία is more frequently associ-
ated with the nouns γάμος or βίος to denote marital union (e.g., BGU IV 1052,
14/13 BC; P.Oxy. XII 1473, AD 201), and is used in an overwhelming majority of
cases 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,69 a house (or share thereof),70 animals,71 a workshop,72 or even
slaves.73 Interestingly, the significance of the prepositional phrase does not
seem to be altered by the preposition itself, whether it be ἐπί, ἀπό, or κατά,
which suggests that the choice (of the preposition) may have depended on
the stylistic preferences (or idiosyncrasies) of the scribe at work, rather than
on firmly-established syntactical rules. Once again, the exact economic and
legal situation implied by the phrase ἐπὶ/κατὰ/ἀπὸ κοινωνίαν/ᾷ/ας (τινος)
cannot always be determined precisely. It may have referred to either the
divided or undivided joint-ownership of some property (communio pro diviso/
indiviso),74 which was fairly common amongst heirs, a lease in partnership,75

67 As J. and L. Robert have remarked, σπηλεοκοινωνία should be understood as referring

to a “tombeau rupestre [σπήλεον for σπήλαιον] . . . appartenant à l’association [κοινωνία]
formée par M. et B [the Migdeos and Bagraththos mentioned ll. 3-5].” J. and L. Robert,
BE (1946-1947) 358-359, #204.
68 e.g., Plato, Leg. 771e; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, [Rhet.] 2.3 (l. 13); Philo, Spec. 3.29;
Josephus, Ant. 20.18.
69 e.g., P.Flor. I 41 (AD 140); P.Col. VII 124 (AD 298-302); P.Col. VII 125 (AD 307).
70 e.g., P.Stras. V 471 bis (AD 505); P.Stras. IV 247 (AD 550/552); P.Stras. IV 248 (AD 560).
71 e.g., PSI X 1119 (AD 156); P.Sakaon 71 (AD 306).
72 e.g., BGU XIX 2822 (AD 526-527).
73 e.g., M.Chr. 237 (AD 149).
74 e.g., PSI X 1119 (AD 156); P.Flor. I 50 (AD 268); P.Vindob.Sal. 12 (AD 334/5).
75 e.g., P.Bad. II 26 (AD 292/3); P.Cair.Isid. 107 (ca. AD 250-300).

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

290 Ogereau

a colonia partiaria arrangement (i.e., share-cropping),76 or even a societas

omnium bonorum.77
As in inscriptions, κοινωνία is occasionally encountered as denoting essen-
tially a business partnership. This is most evident in P.Bour. 13 (AD 98), an
agreement recording the μετοχὴ καὶ κοινωνία (l. 1) between two traders from
Memphis for the sale of lentils at a local market. Incidentally, the seemingly
redundant collocation of κοινωνία and μετοχή provides further evidence that
the two terms (and their respective cognates) could sometimes be used as
practical synonyms.78 This rare but interesting use of κοινωνία is observed in
four more documents such as P.Flor. III 370 (AD 132), a contract for the sublet-
ting of public land between two Roman citizens (or freedmen) who conclude
their homologia by stressing the legal efficacy of their partnership (ἡ κοινωνία
κυρία, l. 18),79 and P.Princ. II 36 (AD 195-197), a tax-farming partnership contract
which may have closed in a similar way (ἡ κοινωνία [κυρία ἔστω], ll. 7-8).80
Significantly, κοινωνία is found to have a particular religious connotation on
only one occasion in a late and fragmentary work contract for a deacon (CPR

76 e.g., P.Princ. II 37 (AD 255-256); SB IV 7474 (AD 254). The legal intricacies of this common
form of land tenure, which was a contract with elements pertaining to locatio conductio
(lease) and elements pertaining to societas, need not divert our attention here. For more
information see S. von Bolla, “Nachträge: III. Teilpacht (colonia partiaria),” PW 18 (1949)
2480-2484; A. Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (Philadelphia: American
Philosophical Society, 1953), s.v. coloni partiarii, 396; D.P. Kehoe, Investment, Profit, and
Tenancy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1997) 11-12.
77 The matter is again slightly complex. Suffice it to say that a partnership (i.e., societas)
often imposed itself upon joint-owners of agricultural property in communio pro indiviso
(undivided). From a legal perspective, such arrangement 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). See R. Taubenschlag,
The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, 332 BC-640 AD (2nd ed.; Milan:
Cisalpino-Goliardica, 1972) 239-243; R. Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations (Cape Town:
Juta, 1990) 453, 465-466; J. Rowlandson, Landowners and Tenants in Roman Egypt (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1996) 173.
78 Cf. Hesychius, Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon (ed. K. Latte; 2 vols.; Copenhagen: Munksgaard,
1953-1966) s.v. μετοχή (= κοινωνία). See also Wilcken, Ostraka, 541; M. San Nicolò,
Ägyptisches Vereinswesen zur Zeit der Ptolemäer und Römer (vol. 1; Munich: Beck, 1913) 150;
H.-A. Rupprecht, Kleine Einführung in die Papyruskunde (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1994) 129-130.
79 This final clause is particularly unusual compared to the more common clauses ἡ ὁμολογία/
μίσθωσις κυρία (e.g., P.Fouad I 33; P.Sakaon 71; P.Lond. III 1168).
80 See also P.Lond. V 1795 (AD VI), an undetermined homologia agreement (τ[ὴν] ὁ�̣μ̣[ολο]
γ̣ίαν τ̣ῆς κοινωνείας, l. 14), and P.CtYBR inv. 616 (AD 99), an unpublished document which
appears to make mention of a κοινωνία (l. 4) in some commercial enterprise.

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

A Survey of Κοινωνία and its Cognates in Documentary Sources 291

V 11, early AD IV?), in which λαικῆς κοινωνίας seems to refer to the commu-
nion or eucharist of the laity.81 This confirms that the term was originally not
thought to bear (intrinsically) a theological significance, which progressively
developed in patristic literature.82
Once again, it is impractical to review in detail all the various NT instances
of the term in the light of the documentary evidence herein adduced. It may
be simply observed that texts such as 1 Cor 10:16-21 could be further illumi-
nated by idiomatic usage of κοινωνία (and its cognates) in cultic inscriptions.83
Similarly, the connotation “association” or “partnership” ought to be given
greater consideration with respect to passages such as Rom 15:26, 2 Cor 8:4
and 9:13,84 Gal 2:9,85 or Phil 1:5.86 As regards the latter instance in particular,
the examples found in IG VII 2225, P.Bour. 13, or P.Flor. III 370, give further cre-
dence to the increasingly common view that Paul and his audience understood
the expression κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον to refer to their proactive cooperation
or partnership in the proclamation of the gospel.87 These documents also raise
interesting questions concerning the possible socio-economic implications
of Paul’s κοινωνία with the Philippians, which evidently entailed economic
exchanges of some sort (cf. Phil 4:15-20), as well as the mutual rendering of
services (cf. Phil 1:22-26; 2:25-30; 4:18).88

81 The papyrus is badly damaged and the sentence itself is difficult to understand. For a
discussion and translation, see G. Schmelz, Kirchliche Amtsträger im spätantiken Ä gypten
(Munich: Saur, 2002) 43. Cf. E. Wipszycka, “Il vescovo et il suo clero: A proposito di CPR V
11,” JJP 22 (1992) 67-81.
82 Cf. PGL, s.v. κοινωνία C.
83 Hollander, for instance, altogether ignores documentary evidence in his recent discussion.
H.W. Hollander, “The Idea of Fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10.14-22,” NTS 55 (2010) 456-470.
84 For a detailed discussion of these texts, see J.M. Ogereau, “The Jerusalem Collection as
Κοινωνία: Paul’s Global Politics of Socio-Economic Equality and Solidarity,” NTS 58.3 (2012)
360-378.
85 J.P. Sampley, Pauline Partnership in Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 21-50.
86 J.M. Ogereau, “Paul’s Κοινωνία with the Philippians: Societas as a Missionary Funding
Strategy,” NTS 60.3 (2014): 360-378.
87 Cf. G.F. Hawthorne, Philippians (Waco: Word Books, 1983) 16-17; P.T. O’Brien, The Epistle to
the Philippians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 61-63; M. Silva, Philippians (Grand Rapid:
Baker, 2005) 44; G.W. Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2009) 32-35, 47-48.
88 Earlier proponents of this view have been J. 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, and Sampley, Partnership. For a more recent and comprehensive
exposition, see Ogereau, Paul’s Koinonia.

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

292 Ogereau

Concluding Remarks

While the relevance of this survey vis-à-vis the NT might not be immediately
obvious (and will require other scholars to exploit and explore further the evi-
dence herein gathered), this summary has at least brought into focus (once
again) the importance and pertinence of documentary sources to the study of
the language of the NT. It has highlighted the range of usages and pragmatic
connotations of κοινωνία, κοινωνός, and κοινωνέω, in a large variety of popu-
lar contexts as preserved in documentary sources. It has also underlined the
necessity to give as much consideration to context and social setting as to syn-
tagmatics in the determination of semantic questions. This should help refine
current understandings of the cognates, which, traditionally, have been pri-
marily informed by, and/or derived from, non-Christian and Christian literary
sources.
In addition, it is hoped that this study will further raise awareness about
the importance of distinguishing between “lexical meaning,” i.e., “what a word
in itself, on its own, contributes to the understanding of an utterance,” and
pragmatic or “contextual meaning,” i.e., the “features of meaning, derived from
the context.”89 For too long, scholarly debates have been polarised over the
question as to whether κοινων~ cognates in the NT retained their basic lexical
meaning of “commonality” or “association”, or whether they acquired the sense
of “participation” or “sharing”, which is more often conveyed by μετέχω and its
cognates.90 As a result, some studies, such as Baumert’s recent 550-page long
volume, have come to be characterised by what can be best described as “hair-
splitting” linguistic discussions that tend to ignore more pragmatic consider-
ations, such as the performative functions of language.91
For example, while many of Baumert’s observations may be valid at a basic
semantic level, they are much less cogent at a contextual level. From a prag-
matic point of view, associating with someone often has practical implications
that lead to the sharing of an object, or of the responsibilities and/or bene-
fits of the activities pursued in common. Baumert may have a point that, in
the judicial memorandum BGU III 969 (AD 142), for instance, κοινωνέω places
emphasis on the relational connection, the Verbund, between the defendants,

89 J.P. Louw, “How Do Words Mean—If They Do?” FilNT 4 (1991) 137.
90 Cf. Lincoln, “Communion,” 135-143.
91 This critique applies particularly well to Baumert’s recent study. For a full critical review,
see Ogereau, Paul’s Koinonia, 136-143.

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

A Survey of Κοινωνία and its Cognates in Documentary Sources 293

and not on the cattle-rearing activity in which they jointly participated.92

However, any such Verbund (which was probably formalised through an oral
or written contract) would have necessarily implied a joint-administration of
the business (or liturgy) in question. It would have required that the partners
collaborate in the running of its operations and (re)distribute amongst them-
selves associated costs and benefits. In context, the connotation “Anteil haben”
is thus a direct, practical consequence of being in Gemeinschaft, and does not
completely cancel the basic lexical features of κοινωνέω.
Similar remarks could be made regarding his discussion of κοινωνέω in the
epitaph CIG 3916 (οὐ[δ]ὲ κοινωνείσει πρός τινα, l. 11; date unknown).93 While the
basic lexical meaning of the verb is certainly not “teilen” as such, for all intents
and purposes, letting a corpse be buried in the sarcophagus equates to “sharing
the tomb with someone” or “to giving a share of it to someone”, which was in
fact a rather common practice. The same could be said of his analysis of the
use and significance of κοινωνία in lease contracts, which overlooks the socio-
economic aims and consequences of such Vereinbarungen.94 To claim that
contractors and contractees did not become Teilhabers, but merely remained
Vertragspartners, is simply misunderstanding the socio-economic obligations
of such agreements, which necessarily entailed a distribution of responsibili-
ties and operational costs, as well as a mutual participation in the benefits
thereby generated. Here again, in such cases, the basic lexical meaning of
κοινωνία is not fundamentally altered, even though, contextually and pragmati-
cally, it expresses or implies some form of participation or sharing.
Finally, this study may be concluded by remarking how seldom, if ever, the
senses “religious community/association” and “spiritual communion/fellow-
ship”, which are held by many to be the primary significance of κοινωνία in the
NT, are encountered in documentary sources, which is a sure sign of its rareness
in the lingua franca of the time. It should in fact now become more generally
recognised that this understanding of κοινωνία is the product of a long process
of theological reflection and superimposition of theological concepts upon the
NT.95 Such anachronisms call for a more rigorous philological methodology to
be employed in the future, one which should strive to be detached from any

92 Baumert, Koinonein, 71-72, 94.

93 Baumert, Koinonein, 136-137.
94 Baumert, Koinonein, 198, 265-266.
95 This is no more evident than in oecumenical discussions of the Eucharist. See for instance
W. Elert, ed., Koinonia: Arbeiten des Okumenischen Ausschusses der Vereinigten Evangelisch-
Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands zur Frage der Kirchen- und Abendmahlsgemeinschaft

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294

294 Ogereau

theological preconception or agenda, as Baumert has rightly suggested, and

one which should strive to embrace the whole gamut of ancient literary and
documentary sources.96

(Berlin: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1957); Pro Oriente, Auf dem Weg zur Einheit des
Glaubens: KOINONIA (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1976).
96 Baumert is certainly correct to insist that “theologische Implikationen” pertinent to
“Ekklesiologie und Eucharistielehre” should be secondary to “semantisch[e] Fragen.”
Baumert, Koinonein, 12.

Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 275-294