Divine Accounting: Theo-Economics in Early Christianity

Jennifer A. Quigley, Divine Accounting: Theo-Economics in Early Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2021).

In Divine Accounting, Quigley contends that the modern categories of “theology” and “economics” were not separate in antiquity but intertwined. Gods, no less than humans, transacted business regularly in the Greco-Roman economy and oftentimes divine beings entered into business transactions with their mortal devotees. With this book, Quigley’s goal is to highlight the connection of theology and economics in the Greco-Roman world in an approach she terms “theo-economics.” Her main hypothesis is that much like their Greco-Roman pagan counterparts, both divine and human, the earliest Christ-confessors, the God of Israel, and Christ participated together in economic transactions. Quigley argues that reading early Christian texts in light of theo-economics captures the nuanced complexity of the economic roles of these actors in trade, transactions, and commodities.

In her “Introduction” (1-15), Quigley introduces her project and the concept of theo-economics. She places her work within specific ongoing scholarly conversations in Pauline studies—the letter to the Philippians, poverty, and gift-giving—and provides an outline of her book. Quigley notes that these discussions have centered on the financial support that the Philippian Christ-confessors gave Paul (Phil 4:13-18) and the implications for Paul’s practice of taking or not taking money from his converts; the level of poverty of Paul’s converts; and/or the function of the Philippian Christ-confessors’ financial gift (charis) to Paul in the epistle he composed to them. She criticizes these trends contending that the first focuses too myopically on Paul, thereby omitting theo-economic questions. The second overemphasizes poverty and fails to consider that Paul speaks equally of gain, loss, and abundance in Philippians. The focus on gift-giving, which focuses on the apostle’s use of the Greek noun charis and the concept of grace in Paul’s letters, Quigley proposes, reminds one too much of the theological crux of the Protestant Reformation, salvation by grace alone. Moreover, like the aforementioned trend, it fails to consider the variegated ways that Paul talks about money.

In the first chapter, “Theo-Economics in Antiquity” (16-33), Quigley explores how Greco-Roman gods and humans transacted business at cultic, both pagan and Jewish, and non-cultic sites. She contends that it was axiomatic for Greeks and Romans that their gods entered into financial relationships with them, for divine beings penetrated every aspect of ancient life. From an examination of a select few Greek and Latin inscriptions, Quigley shows the extent to which the gods participated in the Greco-Roman economy. They owned property, their temples served as banks and mortgage offices, the gods shared profits and losses with their cultic servants, and deities oversaw financial transactions in ancient agorae and macella. Therefore, the Philippian Christ-confessors would have expected God and Christ to participate with them in their economy.

Chapter 2, “The Venture of the Gospel” (34-68), proposes that the guiding interpretative lens through which to read the letter to the Philippians is the business venture or koinōnia into which the God of Israel, Jesus, the Philippian Christ-confessors, and Paul have entered. To this end, Quigley discusses specific theo-economic terms—koinōnia, bebaiōsis, and prokopē—that Paul uses, the so-called commodification of Paul’s imprisonment, and Paul’s divine promissory note to the Philippians in Chapter 4. She contends that in this letter Paul highlights that the Philippian Christ-confessors have entered into a gospel venture (koinōnia) with the God of Israel and Jesus that Paul has brokered. The latter’s imprisonment appears at first sight to have been a setback in this venture, but Paul assures the Philippian Christ-confessors that it is not. Rather, he himself is an object deposited in prison for their gospel koinōnia. His imprisonment is a guarantee (bebaiōsis) that it has been prosperous (prokopē) and Paul promises the Philippian Christ-confessors that God will pay them back for what they have contributed to him in the form of glory. One reason, Quigley contends, that Paul makes the aforementioned arguments is that his imprisonment had roused suspicions among the apostle’s converts that the gospel venture in Philippi was in danger. Therefore, Paul composes the letter to encourage them that even though his imprisonment precludes him from making contributions to their koinōnia God will ensure its success.

Quigley argues in the third chapter that the denizens of the Greco-Roman world considered gods as commodities to be bought, sold, and/or traded. In a similar way, she posits that Paul’s use of accounting terminology in Phil 3:5-17 commodifies Christ in the form of a real, not metaphorical, profit (kerdos) and loss (zēmia) sheet. Thus, Christ is the profit that Paul has acquired and an object into which he has invested, which allows him to participate in Christ’s suffering and to gain Christ and the resurrection of the dead. Unlike the rest of Philippians, Quigley proposes that in this pericope Paul depicts himself as the “sole partner” of the gospel venture of suffering with Christ and therefore as the only broker that the Philippian Christ-confessors have in their koinōnia.

Chapter 4, “The Down Payment of Righteousness” (93-110), moves beyond Paul’s letter to the Philippians and focuses on Polycarp’s letter to the same Christian community for the purpose of tracking Paul’s theo-economic message into the early second century CE. Quigley argues that Polycarp uses Paul’s commodification of Christ and the contract of the gospel venture for his own ends. The Philippian Christ-confessors must keep up their end of the contract with God and Christ because the latter is the down payment (arrabōn) for humanity’s sins. They must be aware of the impending divine judgment where everyone must give an account. To fare well in this accounting, they need to comport themselves in the beliefs and practices that Polycarp deems appropriate.

The book closes with a summary, and Quigley shares her hope that future research will consider properly the role of the divine in the Greco-Roman economy. This new methodology will allow scholars to ask nuanced and fresh questions about fiscal matters in nascent Christianity and new possibilities for interpreting human to human and human to divine interactions. The author also includes an appendix that provides a translation of the letter to the Philippians from a theo-economic perspective.

Quigley’s work is a refreshing, thoughtful, and creative reading of aspects of Paul’s and Polycarp’s letters to the Philippians and a testament to the ability of inscriptions and papyri to illuminate and provide nuanced readings of early Christian texts. Certainly, she is correct that scholars, particularly historians of early Christianity, have underappreciated the role of the divine as actors and partners with humans in the Greco-Roman economy. Some of Quigley’s arguments about Paul’s letter to the Philippians are convincing. Building on the work of Julien M. Ogereau, she provides further support for reading koinōnia as a contractual term in the epistle and her contention that Phil 3:5-17 presents a profit-loss sheet is illuminative.[1] Moreover, I consider Quigley’s translation of koinōnia as “venture” innovative, for it captures well, in English at least, the many valences of the Greek term. There are, however, minor aspects of her work that invite further debate. For example, Quigley makes a strong case for a theo-economic valence of bebaiōsis in Phil 1:7, but a close examination of the language raises further questions. Bebaiōsis is used in parallel with apologia in Phil 1:7 and governed by the same preposition, en, which suggests to me that apologia and bebaiōsis are synonymous.[2] Thus, while I agree that bebaiōsis has theo-economic implications for Paul’s imprisonment and the Philippian Christ-confessors (and Quigley does a masterful job demonstrating that point), the juridical connotations of apologia argues against reading bebaiōsis as a contractual guarantee. This minor disagreement notwithstanding, Quigley’s work is a must read for scholars working on early Christianity in Philippi, particularly on Paul’s letter to the Philippians, and I anticipate seeing the development of her methodology of theo-economics with other early Christian texts.

[1] Julien M. Ogereau, Paul’s Koinonia with the Philippians: A Socio-Historical Investigation of a Pauline Economic Partnership, WUNT II/337 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014).

[2] Paul says, “As it is right for me to consider this for you all because I have you in my heart, both in my chains and en tē apologia kai babaiōsei . . .” In fairness, I have spoken with Quigley via email correspondence about her interpretation of bebaiōsis, and she interprets the term as juridical and theo-economic, concluding that the choice of either bebaiōsis as a juridical or contractual term is a false binary.

D. Clint Burnett (Ph.D. Boston College) is an independent scholar who specializes in interpreting Paul’s letters in light of the material culture in the cities in which he established the earliest Christian communities.