‘What has Corinth to do with Jerusalem?’ Long before Tertullian asked a similar question (Praescr. 7), we may assume that this was an objection some of the Corinthians put to Paul when he first mentioned the collection for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem (cf. Rom 15.26).Footnote 1 What, indeed, did the privileged Colonia Laus Iuliae Corinthiensis have to do with the religious and cultural centre of the Jewish people?Footnote 2 What political treaty, economic agreement, socio-cultural connection, or even ethnic relationship existed between the two cities that could justify Paul's request? It is possible to imagine that some Corinthians may have been fairly perplexed at the purpose of the collection at first.Footnote 3 However, our familiarity with the topic has somewhat prevented us from appreciating the sheer audacity and radical nature of Paul's project. True, it is not as though Gentiles were totally estranged to the idea of bestowing benefactions upon the Jews. Some so-called ‘god-fearers’, for whatever religious or socio-political reason, did show themselves benevolent through the sponsorship of buildings or the giving of alms, for instance (e.g., Luke 7.4; Acts 10.2).Footnote 4 However, the collection Paul had in mind represented an act of charity altogether different. Indeed, this article will argue that it was intended to transcend geo-political, socio-economic, and ethnic distinctions in a revolutionary way, as well as redefine the social foundations of the emergent Christ-believing communities.
If the Corinthians may have been somewhat puzzled at the significance and purpose of this collection, their perplexity seems nothing compared to that of modern scholars with respect to its actual theological motivations (as is illustrated by the enormous amount of secondary literature on the topic). It is beyond the purview of this article to offer a detailed review of the history of scholarship. It is sufficient to mention that the collection has been traditionally understood along four main lines of interpretation (which are not necessarily mutually exclusive): (1) the fulfilment of an eschatological event;Footnote 5 (2) the expression of the Gentiles' moral and/or social obligation towards the Jews;Footnote 6 (3) an ecumenical offering;Footnote 7 (4) a charitable act in the form of material relief.Footnote 8 What is particularly important for us to recognise is that an overwhelming majority of these treatises have primarily focused on the theological rationale of the collection, ignoring its more practical economic implications, or even its political dimension.Footnote 9 For, as H. D. Betz has astutely remarked: ‘A financial contribution which involved Greeks as donors and Palestinian Jews as recipients was certainly a political matter’.Footnote 10 A ‘matter of ecclesiastical politics’, he concedes, but a matter of politics nonetheless, socio-economic politics, if I may add.Footnote 11 That is to say, it must have been more than a random act of generosity, which in and of itself may not have been worth all the trouble. Indeed, I shall propose that, for Paul, the whole enterprise was rooted in the conviction that the advent of the eschatological kingdom of God had inaugurated a new socio-economic order, which was to become distinctive of the emergent Christ-believing communities on a global scale.Footnote 12 The Jerusalem collection was thus the practical expression of κοινωνία across socio-cultural and ethnic boundaries. It was the manifestation of a persistent concern for socio-economic equality and solidarity within the Christ-centred ekklēsia.Footnote 13 I will go as far as to say that it was the practical embodiment of an ecclesiastical ideal, which itself seems to have been inspired by that of the first Jerusalem community, the so-called ‘community of goods’ inaugurated after the Pentecost event (Acts 2.44; 4.32). In a sense, I shall argue for a greater degree of continuity between Paul's model of community and that of the Jerusalem church. This perspective, it must be said, does not intend to demean the work of previous scholarship. Rather, it is meant to emphasise what seems to me to have been a neglected aspect of the collection by bringing a different set of questions to the material.Footnote 14 This task is important in so far as, until recently, economic concerns, and the question of poverty in particular, have been much neglected issues in Pauline Studies.Footnote 15 This article seeks to contribute to this new field of research and to provide some insight into what may well have been Paul's overarching objective for this project.
To begin with, I propose to draw our attention to the ways in which Paul carefully describes the collection throughout his letters. In 1 Cor 16.1–4, Paul's earliest reference to the project chronologically, he calls it a λογεία, which is the general term for any kind of voluntary, or compulsory, monetary collection.Footnote 16 In 2 Corinthians 8, which could well be the earliest letter of what is now known as 2 Corinthians, as M. M. Mitchell has recently suggested,Footnote 17 when the Corinthians' eagerness to give has cooled down, Paul then presents it as a divine privilege or gift, in which they can participate voluntarily and out of love (cf. αὐθαίρετοι, 8.3).Footnote 18 No less than eight times is the term χάρις indeed employed to refer to either the collection per se, or to God's favour enabling them to give (8.1, 4, 6–7, 9, 19; 9.8, 14; cf. 1 Cor 16.3).Footnote 19 In 2 Corinthians 9, which many scholars consider to constitute a different letter,Footnote 20 the collection is then described several times as a διακονία [τῆς λειτουργίας] (9.1, 12–13; cf. Rom 16.31), and εὐλογία (9.5). As J. R. Harrison has amply demonstrated, in these two chapters Paul's rhetoric eventually results in a dramatic alteration and critique of the honorific conventions and social expectations of the Graeco-Roman system of benefaction.Footnote 21 What remains unclear, however, is to what extent Paul's rhetoric is related to the actual nature of the project. Was it simply a charitable act in which the Corinthians were mere ‘brokers’ of God's grace, as the language of reciprocity somewhat evokes (cf. Rom 15.27)?Footnote 22 Or was it primarily driven by the principle of ἰσότης introduced in 8.13–14, that is, by the necessity that there be a certain equality or fairness in the distribution of wealth within the early church (v. 14: ὅπως γένηται ἰσότης; cf. v. 13: ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἰσότητος)? The reference to ἰσότης is deeply intriguing at this point, especially since it appears only five times in the Septuagint and in Pseudepigraphical literature (Job 36.29; Zech 4.7; Letter of Aristeas 1.263; Ps.-Phoc. 1.137; Ps. Sol. 17.41), and only one other time in the entire NT (Col 4.1).Footnote 23 The term itself is not alien to Greek thought, as H. Windisch noticed long ago (‘Dies Wort…zwar ohne hebräisches Äquivalent…ist ein Terminus der hellenistischen Philosophie’), occurring numerous times in ancient discussions of legal and political theory.Footnote 24 In a civic context, ἰσότης denotes the sense of equality, fairness, and impartiality, in relation to justice (δικαιοσύνη/τὸ δίκαιον) and the law (νόμος), an ideal which is further expressed by the common compound nouns ἰσοπολιτεία or ἰσονομία (e.g., Aristotle Eth. Nic. 8.11.5, 8.13.5; Diogenes Laertius 8.10; Dio Chrysostom Or. 17.9–10).Footnote 25 For Aristotle, ‘reciprocal’ or ‘proportional equality’ is what ensures the preservation of states (Pol. 2.1.5: τὸ ἴσον τὸ ἀντιπεπονθὸς σῴζει τὰς πόλεις). When applied more specifically to human relationships, ἰσότης is then what enables the most perfect expression of friendship. Φιλότης ἡ ἰσότης (‘equality is friendship’), the proverb indeed stated (Aristotle Eth. Nic. 8.5.5; cf. Eth. Nic. 8.7.2–4, 9.8.2; Eth. Eud. 7.6.9; Iamblichus, VP 30.167–168).Footnote 26 Although the Greek principle seems to have informed Paul's reflection here, as Betz has confidently asserted,Footnote 27 Paul actually illustrated the kind of equality he had in mind by citing almost verbatim Exod 16.18 in the following v. 15.Footnote 28 Yet, in his recollection of Israel's story he omitted the important fact that after all the manna had been collected, exactly one omer was measured out and distributed to each so as to ensure equal provision of food. Paul thus seems simply to have wanted to emphasise that none had either too much (οὐκ ἐπλεόνασεν) or too little (οὐκ ἠλαττόνησεν), since each received as ‘was fitting’ (εἰς τοὺς καθήκοντας παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ; Exod 16.18), i.e., in proportion to their need. It is therefore unlikely that by appealing to the principle of ἰσότης and Exod 16.18 Paul wished to impose an exact equalisation of resources across all the churches, an impractical, if not impossible objective to attain. Rather, his edited citation suggests that the goal was to achieve a relative, proportional equality by restoring a certain balance between need and surplus. As G. Griffith has proposed, Paul was not so much advocating ‘quantifiable equivalence’ among the churches, but sought to implement a (dynamic) ‘process of equalization within the body of Christ where those who have a surplus share with others who have needs’.Footnote 29 G. Stählin is then also probably right to assert that Paul saw ἰσότης, ‘on the part of the Christian’, as ‘a regulative principle of mutual assistance, as in the ideal picture of Ac. 2.44f.; 4.36f.’.Footnote 30 If this were truly the case, then Paul's ideal of ἰσότης among Jews and Gentiles would constitute another severe critique of the socio-economic and ethnic stratification of Graeco-Roman society.Footnote 31
Yet, what is even more significant is Paul's use of the term κοινωνία to describe the collection. It first appears in 2 Cor 8.4 and 9.13, and then in Rom 15.26, which, from a chronological point of view, is the last reference to the collection written from Corinth itself. Interestingly, in the latter two instances κοινωνία has generally been translated as a (monetary) ‘contribution/distribution’ (cf. Tyndale 1534, KJV 1611, RSV, NAS, NIV, NJB, ESV), ‘une contribution/dons’ (Louis Second 1910, Nouvelle Edition Genève), and ‘eine Sammlung/Kollekte’ (Zürcher Bibel 2008, Schlachter 2000; cf. Luther Bibel 1545: ‘eine gemeine Steuer’!), thereby differing from the more common rendition ‘fellowship’ or ‘sharing’ (or ‘communion’, ‘Gemeinschaft’).Footnote 32 In modern times, this interpretation seems to have been largely dependent on the influential work of H. Seesemann, upon whom F. Hauck relied heavily in his article in G. Kittel's theological dictionary.Footnote 33 Given the importance of this tool in biblical studies, it is hardly surprising that Seesemann's position was to be adopted by a string of commentators (except R. Jewett and the editor of BDAG who follow G. W. Peterman—see below).Footnote 34 Seesemann argued that in Rom 15.26 especially Paul gave the abstract word κοινωνία, which here signifies ‘Mitteilsamkeit’ (it is not clear to me what Seesemann understands by ‘Mitteilsamkeit’), a concrete significance by associating it with the infinitive ποιήσασθαι. So that, in this instance, it could only mean ‘Kollekte’.Footnote 35 Notably, J. Y. Campbell, who had published his seminal study a year ahead of Seesemann, had come to the same (short-sighted) conclusion: ‘Here [Rom 15.26] κοινωνία must mean “contribution”. No parallel to this meaning is to be found in earlier writers.’Footnote 36 As we shall see, Campbell missed some important evidence, which his successors would not notice either. Hence, almost none of them would depart from his and Seesemann's conclusions.Footnote 37 But despite their confident assertions, it is highly questionable that Paul's audience would have understood the expression ‘κοινωνίαν τινὰ ποιήσασθαι’ in the way they suggest. As Peterman rightly argued, the term κοινωνία never has the concrete significance of ‘(monetary) contribution’ in surviving ancient sources, its unusual collocation with τινά and ποιοῦμαι notwithstanding.Footnote 38 Instead, he suggested that Bauer's understanding remained valid: ‘sie haben sich vorgenommen, e. enges Gemeinschaftsverhältnis herzustellen mit d. Armen’ (they have undertaken to establish a rather close relation with the poor).Footnote 39 Although Peterman's study could hardly be said to be exhaustive—he adduced only three pieces of literary and epigraphic evidence—his intuition was nonetheless correct.Footnote 40 A more thorough investigation of about 25 inscriptions and 120 papyri containing the word κοινωνία, and ranging from IV BCE to VI CE, plainly shows that the meaning ‘(monetary) contribution’ does not occurFootnote 41—I cannot be as definite vis-à-vis the literary sources, however, since I have only conducted a limited and sporadic examination of the 812 instances of the term prior to II CE found in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. In documentary sources (papyri and inscriptions), which perhaps best illustrate the everyday language of the time, κοινωνία is indeed mainly used to describe sharing in sacrifices (ἡ κοινωνία τῶν ἱερῶν/θυσιῶν; e.g., SEG 21.530; SGDI 3.3634),Footnote 42 participation in the politeia, festivals or public projects (e.g., SEG 40.394; IGDS 117), marriage relationships (e.g., I.Priene 109; BGU 4.1051, 1052), political alliance (e.g., SEG 51.532), and professional associations or business partnerships (e.g., P.Col. 7.124; P.Lond. 2.311).Footnote 43 To the best of my knowledge, the phrase ‘κοινωνίαν τινὰ ποιοῦμαι’ remains unattested in inscriptions and papyri.
Nevertheless, several analogous literary constructions may shed some light on the matter. In his Antiquitates Romanae, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, for instance, employs the expression ‘τὴν κοινωνίαν ἐποιεῖτο’ to describe the married life of a certain Arruns with a young woman (Ant. Rom. 13.10.2). A second set of examples comes from three of Aesop's fables. In the first one, a lion, a donkey, and a fox enter into a ‘hunting partnership’: κοινωνίαν ποιησάμενοι εἰς ἄγραν (Fab. 154).Footnote 44 In the second tale, only a lion and a donkey associate with each other: κοινωνίαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ποιησάμενοι ἐξῆλθον ἐπὶ θήραν (Fab. 156),Footnote 45 while in the third one, a bat, a fish, and a shearwater decide to form a ‘business partnership’: κοινωνίαν ποιήσαντες ἐμπορεύεσθαι διέγνωσαν (Fab. 181).Footnote 46 Similarly, in one of Isaeus's judicial orations, a certain Theopompus denies having made a pact with his brother Stratocles to divide the inheritance of their deceased cousin Hagnias in the following way: ὥστ' οὐκ ἐνῆν κοινωνίαν οὐδὲ διομολογίαν ποιήσασθαι περὶ αὐτῶν (Isaeus 11.21). It is difficult to imagine how, in any of these cases, someone would translate these expressions as ‘to make a (monetary) contribution’. But perhaps the most insightful parallels are found in Plato and Demosthenes. Towards the end of his Laws, Plato explains a rule in a way that strikingly resembles Rom 15.26 both syntactically and conceptually. ‘During the fruit harvest’, he writes, ‘all are obliged to form an association/partnership in such a manner’: ὀπώρας δὲ δὴ χρὴ κοινωνίαν ποιεῖσθαι πάντας τοιάνδε τινά (Plato Leg. 844D; cf. Resp. 371B).Footnote 47 Similarly, in Demosthenes' third Philippic Oration one can read the following: κοινωνίαν βοηθείας καὶ φιλίας ποιήσασθαι (Demosthenes Or. 9.28). The precise sense of the phrase is not easy to determine, though in context it must be referring to the establishment (ποιήσασθαι) of a common agreement or partnership (κοινωνία) among the Greeks to help each other (βοηθεία) and unite politically and militarily (φιλία) against the threat of Philip of Macedon.Footnote 48
This political connotation of κοινωνία is not as unusual as it may first appear.Footnote 49 In P.Schøyen I 25, the famous bronze tablet of the treaty between the Romans and the Lycians, κοινωνία is added to the common formula ‘ϕιλία καὶ συμμαχαία’, which usually officialises the political alliance between Rome and its allies (l.7: ϕιλί[α καὶ συμμαχαία κ]αὶ κοινωνία).Footnote 50 Likewise, on the base of a rotunda dedicated to Hadrian, the Laodiceans from Syria identify themselves as the friends, allies, and κοινωνοί, ‘political associates’ or ‘partners’ we may translate, of the Roman people (ϕίλης συμμάχου κοινωνοῦ δήμου Ῥωμαίων; IG II2 3299 = OGIS 603; cf. SEG 45.2358).Footnote 51 Unlike κοινωνία, the substantive κοινωνός is actually much more frequently attested in ancient sources as the object of the verb ποιέω, and generally refers to political allies, business associates, or the recipients of some benefaction.Footnote 52 For example, in a II BCE honorary decree from Claros, a certain Polemaios is praised for his eagerness to make his fellow citizens his κοινωνοί in the conduct of his life upon returning victorious from sacred athletic contests: σπεύδων ἀπ' ἀρχῆς κοινωνοὺς ποιήσασθαι τῆς τοῦ βίου προαιρέσεως (ll. 11–13).Footnote 53 As the rest of the inscription makes clear, this meant that he would share generously of his good fortune and wealth with his city through the distributions of sweet wine and various other material and financial benefactions, such as ἔρανος loans which he extended to foreigners and refugees.Footnote 54 Here again, the way Polemaios is depicted as inaugurating his ‘politique de générosité envers le peuple’, is strikingly reminiscent of Paul's language.Footnote 55 To return to the question of Rom 15.26, then, I would like to propose that Paul's audience most likely did not understand the phrase ‘κοινωνίαν τινὰ ποιήσασθαι’ to refer to a financial contribution per se. It is indeed more probable that they understood it to be describing some kind of partnership or association with socio-political ramifications, which Paul envisaged between the Gentile churches and their Judean counterparts, and which would ultimately manifest itself in the form of a concrete monetary gift.Footnote 56 This interpretation, I suggest, could easily be applied to 2 Cor 8.4 and 9.13 as well.Footnote 57
More generally, this particular translation issue should alert us to the fact that we must be more precise when we translate and reflect upon the significance of κοινωνία, which, we ought not to forget, is employed almost exclusively by Paul in the NT.Footnote 58 The term ‘fellowship’ (understand ‘spiritual fellowship’), which is quite a popular understanding, is often all too vague a word to capture fully the essence of what Paul is trying to convey.Footnote 59 As Betz noted long ago, κοινωνία is ‘drawn from the language of administration and law…and the legal meaning should not be ignored in favor of the personal or communal notion of fellowship’.Footnote 60 I would also like to add that it may actually be more helpful to think of κοινωνία as the noun derived from the adjective κοινός.Footnote 61 Much like κοινωνία, this abstract word can assume various shades of meanings. In substantive form, it can designate the general public interest (Isocrates 14.21; Demosthenes Ep. 1.5, 9–10), public matters (Demosthenes Or. 18.257; Res Gestae 1.2: τὰ κοινὰ πράγματα = res publica), public funds (Demosthenes Or. 8.23; Xenophon An. 4.7.27; Aristotle Pol. 2.6.23), different sorts of socio-political entities such as the polis, leagues, local communities, subdivisions of the government (cf. Herodotus 1.67, 3.156, 5.109; Thucydides 1.90, 2.12; SIG 457; P.Thead. 17; P.Oxy. 1.54), clubs or associations, and what we would call professional ‘guilds’ (SIG 1113; P.Oxy. 1.53; P.Oxy. 1.84).Footnote 62 In essence, however, it generally conveys the idea of commonality, and by extension, of community on the basis of a common bond. When employed to characterize social attitudes, J. de Romilly observed that κοινός often expresses ‘l'idée de partage’, ‘la bonté généreuse’.Footnote 63 Plutarch, for instance, associates it with the words εὐμενής and ϕιλανθρωπία in his depiction of Phocion's natural benevolence (Phoc. 10.4), while in his encomium on Rome Dionysius of Halicarnassus describes the city as κοινοτάτην τε πόλεων καὶ ϕιλανθρωποτάτην (Ant. Rom. 1.89.1).Footnote 64 This may also explain why in Aristotle's Politics, in which κοινωνία repeatedly refers to the basic socio-political units undergirding the fabric of society, the κοινωνία of the polis intrinsically implies, indeed demands from its citizens, sociability, communality, interdependency, and solidarity, thereby placing the Athenians, in theory at least, under the common obligation to assist one another.Footnote 65 Meanwhile, at the household level, κοινωνία requires mutual assistance and the sharing of all things among its members (Aristotle Pol. 1.3.12). Overall, it is highly significant that κοινός and κοινωνία appear to possess no particular religious connotation.Footnote 66 Therefore, I see no warrant to regard κοινωνία strictly as ‘ein religiöser Terminus’,Footnote 67 as Seesemann suggested, or to argue, as Hauck did, that the ‘κοινων- group…in Paul…has a directly religious content’.Footnote 68 Seesemann's deduction that κοινωνία never has a secular meaning (‘einer profanen Bedeutung’) in Paul because it is often found in proximity to religious terms (‘religiöser Begriffen’) such as χάρις and ἀγάπη, and therefore belongs to the same (lexical, presumably) sphere (‘der gleichen Sphäre’), is not only methodologically flawed (because of the questionable ‘religious vs. secular’ nomenclature it introduces), but also manifestly incorrect.Footnote 69 Besides Rom 15.26 and 2 Cor 8.4 and 9.13 already treated in this article, other examples such as Gal 2.9 (δεξιὰς κοινωνίας) or 1 Cor 10.16 (κοινωνία τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ/τοῦ σώματος) clearly demonstrate that a strictly ‘religious’ connotation cannot always be attributed to κοινωνία.Footnote 70 Furthermore, as Harrison's work has amply illustrated, the term χάρις cannot be said to possess a purely theological sense, but is most frequently found in the context of civic benefaction.Footnote 71 Accordingly, this should caution us against systematically imposing our own theological ‘colouring’ upon the term whenever Paul uses it. If we do so, we might indeed run the risk of obscuring Paul's thought, which is not solely animated by lofty theological motives, but is also deeply concerned with social, political, and economic issues.
When κοινωνία is thus associated with ἰσότης, the socio-economic dimension of Paul's collection becomes even more evident. It evokes a certain sense of political unity and socio-economic equality within the (global) community of Christ-followers to an extent that is observed nowhere else in the NT except perhaps in Luke's summary depiction of the original Jerusalem community.Footnote 72 The linguistic and conceptual similarities are indeed particularly striking. Twice in Acts 2.44 and 4.32, Luke describes the early disciples as being one soul (ψυχὴ μία), freely selling some of their possessions to provide for those in need, and holding everything in common (ἅπαντα κοινά). In 2.42, he actually defines such state of community as being in κοινωνία—which is the only time the term appears in the Gospels and in Acts.Footnote 73 The problem of the historicity of these two allegedly ‘fictional’ passages has been amply commented upon in the past.Footnote 74 There is no need for me to expand on this issue in any detail, except to say that for Luke's overall apologetic purpose to have borne some sort of credibility and legitimacy, his account must have rested upon a factual historical foundation of some sort.Footnote 75 As R. M. Grant has asserted, the ‘situation Luke described in Acts was not just the product of his imagination’.Footnote 76 But what is perhaps more important for us to reflect upon is the rhetorical function of these passages. Although it is quite possible that the Essenes influenced early forms of ecclesiastical community—‘Essene tenets and practices…at least provide concrete and tangible evidence for a Palestinian matrix of the early church as it is described in Acts’Footnote 77—it is improbable that Luke's description was driven by the Qumran community ideal, which required new members to surrender all private property upon entrance (1QS 1.11; 5.1–3, 6; cf. Josephus B.J. 2.120–122; Ant. 18.18–22; Pliny Nat. 5.17). The two groups indeed differed significantly in some aspects of their administrative structure.Footnote 78 Similarly, it is not necessary for us to envisage Luke as ‘borrowing’ the topic of the Pythagorean ‘golden age’,Footnote 79 a utopia which was later developed more fully by Plato.Footnote 80 Holding women and children in common is certainly not in view here, nor is the complete abolition of private property really suggested.Footnote 81 What is more, Plato's ideal, which, on his own admission, was mostly applicable among the Guardians (Resp. 3.413C–417B, 5.462E–464B, 8.543A–C), failed to be embraced by Graeco-Roman society at large.Footnote 82 It was severely criticised by the likes of Aristotle (see especially Politics ch. 2), Epictetus (2.4.8–11), and Seneca (Ep. 90.38–40), and even ridiculed by Aristophanes in his Ecclesiazusae. L. Cerfaux's word of caution thus remains valid: ‘Les réminiscences littéraires des Acts ne doivent pas créer d'illusion. En réalité, les principes chrétiens sont tout autres que ceux des pythagoriciens, des stoïciens (qui ont repris le thème à leur façon) ou des Esséniens’.Footnote 83 Therefore, it is perhaps best to appreciate Luke's language as echoing aphorisms as to what constituted perfect friendship, τελεία ϕιλία, sayings which are well-attested in the Graeco-Roman culture of the time.Footnote 84 The proverb ‘κοινὰ τὰ ϕίλων’ is indeed quoted by such notable authors as Plato (Resp. 4.424A; Lysis 207C; Leg. 5.739C), Aristotle (Eth. Nic. 8.9.1), Euripides (Orest. 735; Phoen. 243), Cicero (Off. 1.51: ‘ut in Graecorum proverbio est, amicorum esse communia omnia’), Martial (2.43.1), Seneca (Ben. 7.4.1: ‘omnia dicitis illis esse communia’), Philo (Abr. 235; Mos. 1.156), Plutarch (Adul. amic. 65A), Iamblichus (VP 19.92), Diogenes Laertius (8.10), and some Cynic philosophers ([Crates], Ep. 26; [Diogenes], Ep. 10).Footnote 85 For Aristotle, friendship actually consisted of being in κοινωνία: ἐν κοινωνία γὰρ ἡ ϕιλία (Eth. Nic. 8.9.1; cf. 8.12.1, 9.12), he affirms, so that brothers and friends (ἑταίροι) have πάντα κοινά (Eth. Nic. 8.9.1). In an appeal to his Hellenistic audience, Luke thus seems to have intended his slightly idealised portrayal of socio-economic equality to constitute the evidence that the early church was capable of achieving the highest level of social harmony—and perhaps he also meant to encourage his audience to pursue the ideal (if we allow for these summaries to bear some performative ethical potential).Footnote 86 It could attain what many considered to be the ultimate goal, and most intimate form, of social intercourse, that which defined the very essence of friendship. In a sense, Luke may simply have wanted to illustrate the fact that the early church's ‘spirit of openness and sharing…constituted true κοινωνία friendship’.Footnote 87 And, as A. C. Mitchell has incisively remarked, he did so with a precise goal in mind: ‘to unify his community across social lines’.Footnote 88 Intriguingly, Luke's thought on this matter appears particularly close to that of Paul, perhaps closer than has generally been accepted.Footnote 89 Indeed, as J. Dupont once observed: ‘cet idéal correspond fort exactement à celui que Paul caractérise par l’ἰσότης, “l'égalité”, qui doit régner entre les chrétiens'.Footnote 90
To conclude, then, this article has endeavoured to provide a different perspective on the Jerusalem collection by exploring the political and socio-economic dimension of ἰσότης and κοινωνία, which, I have argued, represent the key motives of the entire project. When examined in the context of ancient literary and documentary sources, it becomes obvious that the two terms do not primarily bear the theological connotations that generations of scholars have ascribed to them. Paul's rhetorical appeal to ἰσότης and κοινωνία rather suggests that he had very concrete objectives in mind. His intentions seem to have extended beyond the mere alleviation of poverty by means of charitable giving. Indeed, he appears to have aimed at reforming the structural inequalities of Graeco-Roman society that were also becoming apparent in the early church (cf. 1 Cor 11.17–22), by fostering socio-economic ἰσότης between Jews and Gentiles and by establishing a global, socially and ethnically inclusive κοινωνία among them.Footnote 91 Needless to say, this deeply challenged ancient socio-political theories and dissolved ancient prejudices based on socio-ethnic distinctions.Footnote 92 In light of these deductions, one is therefore compelled to challenge M. Hengel's conservative conclusion that ‘[i]n the Pauline mission communities…we no longer come across the eschatological and enthusiastic form of sharing goods which we assume to have been practised by the earliest community in Jerusalem’.Footnote 93 The thought that the socio-economic ideal of the early church quickly vanished because of its unrealistic and impractical ‘communism’ indeed fails to do justice to the evidence concerning the collection. In a similar vein, Haenchen's conclusion that ‘the primitive Church also realized the Greek communal ideal!’Footnote 94 ought to be reconsidered. The early church did not fulfil it, rather, it superseded it.Footnote 95 For, in theory at least, and in practice for a short while at first, it brought Jews and Gentiles together into a global community of faith in an unprecedented way. Furthermore, as Paul's collection exemplifies so well, it fostered socio-economic equality and solidarity across socio-cultural and ethnic divides in a manner that no Greek socio-political utopia had ever dared to envisage.
