" 'For My Child, Onesimus': Paul and Domestic Power in Philemon." Journal of Biblical Literature 119...

"For My Child, Onesimus": Paul and Domestic Power in PhilemonAuthor(s): Chris FrilingosSource: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 119, No. 1 (Spring, 2000), pp. 91-104Published by: The Society of Biblical LiteratureStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3267970 .

Accessed: 29/01/2015 13:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Thu, 29 Jan 2015 13:06:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sbl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3267970?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


JBL 119/1 (2000) 91-104

"FOR MY CHILD, ONESIMUS": PAUL AND DOMESTIC POWER

IN PHILEMON

CHRIS FRILINGOS

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599

I. Philemon's Family Language

Early in the second century CE, the younger Pliny wrote a letter to his friend Sabinianus on behalf of an errant freedman:

I know you are angry with him, and I know, too, it is not without reason; but clemency can never exert itself more laudably than when there is more cause for resentment. You once had an affection for this man, and, I hope, will have again. ... do not make himself uneasy any longer, and I will add too, do not make yourself so; for a man of your benevolence of heart cannot be angry without feeling great uneasiness. (Ep. 9.21)

Here a free Roman intervenes for another party as an amicus domini ("a friend of the master"). Paul's letter to Philemon also exemplifies this type of interces- sion.1 Both epistles flatter and appeal to the emotions of the addressees, but the

A version of this article was presented at the 1998 Southeast Regional Meeting of the SBL in

Knoxville, Tennessee. I am especially grateful to two audience members, Rollin Ramsaran and

Sharyn Dowd, for their remarks about the paper. I also wish to thank Bart Ehrman, Andrew Jacobs, Dale Martin, and Amy DeRogatis for reading and commenting on earlier drafts. Finally, I greatly appreciate the suggestions made by the anonymous readers forJBL.

I Apparently, Pliny's efforts were successful; see Ep. 9.24. See also Cassius Dio's account of

Augustus's intervention for the slave of Vedius Pollio (54.23.2). For Roman legal evidence of amicus domini, see Peter Lampe, "Keine 'Sklavenflucht' des Onesimus," ZNW 76 (1985) 135-37. Commentators have long noted a resemblance between Pliny's epistle and Paul's letter to Phile- mon. Albert Dwight Callahan observes (following Marion Soards, "Some Neglected Theological Dimensions of Paul's Letter to Philemon," Perspectives in Religious Studies 17/3 [1990] 210 n. 12) that Joachim Camerarius first suggested the parallel in the sixteenth century (Embassy of Ones- imus: The Letter of Paul to Philemon [New Testament in Context; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1997] 7); Callahan, though, is dubious about the comparison. See also John Knox, Philemon Among the Letters of Paul: A New View of Its Place and Importance (New York/Nashville: Abingdon, 1959) 17; and John M. G. Barclay, "Paul, Philemon, and the Dilemma of Christian Slave-Ownership," NTS 37 (1991) 175.

91



92 Journal of Biblical Literature

tone of the apostle's letter differs from Pliny's composition.2 Kinship imagery, which Pliny's letter lacks, imbues Paul's letter with a familial intimacy; these

metaphors draw Philemon, Onesimus, and the apostle himself into a literary consanguinity.3

In this article I situate Paul's letter to Philemon within the ancient cultural fields that enlivened its contents. The methodology I employ attends to the

complex ideologies informing the Pauline corpus and reveals the "conversa- tional" character of these epistles.4 Just as "power is a quality that inheres in social relationships," so meaning is a product of communities of readers (and writers).5 Paul's symbolic universe, then, does not solely determine the significance of his epistolary language; by ascribing meaning to this language, his readers play a crucial role in the formation of Pauline discourse. Recent schol-

arship on Philemon disregards this audience factor, however.6 Here I seek to discover how the epistle's metaphors worked within the Greco-Roman context shared by Paul and Philemon's household. Specifically, I will investigate the

myriad ways that this letter simultaneously expresses and counters claims to

authority.7 Dale B. Martin's Slavery as Salvation, which examines Paul's self-

designation as "a slave of Christ," models my approach to the epistle. His study demonstrates that the slave metaphor conveyed a variety of denotations for Paul's readers: "In some contexts it could carry meanings of humility; at other

2 See J. Albert Harrill, The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity (Tiibingen: Mohr-

Siebeck, 1995) 164 n. 22. 3 See Norman R. Petersen's discussion of the multiple roles played by the letter's actors

(Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul's Narrative World [Philadelphia: West-

minster, 1985] 2-3). 4 A good introductory essay to this interpretive practice is The Bible and Culture Collective,

"Ideological Criticism," in The Postmodern Bible (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1995) 272-308. Recent examples of this approach applied to Pauline literature include Elizabeth

Castelli, Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991); Dale B.

Martin, Slavery as Salvation (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1990); and idem, The Corinthian Body (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1995).

5 Elizabeth A. Castelli, "Interpretations of Power in 1 Corinthians," Semeia 54 (1991) 203. 6 See, e.g., Petersen: ". .. we will be concerned only with the narrative world of the Letter to

Philemon and the narrative world of Paul, as represented in his letters" (Rediscovering, 15). This is an author-driven hermeneutics, but see Castelli's instructive observation: "His [Paul's] own discourse . . invites, indeed demands, the presence of interpreters" ("Interpretations," 198).

7See Frederic Jameson's remarks on the difference between reading for a text's meaning and

reading for a text's function or effects (The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act [Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981] 108). See also Castelli, "Interpretations," 197-204; and Martin, Slavery, xx-xxiii, 136. Treatments that employ sociological methods and models represent a different approach to this topic; see, e.g., Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (ConBNT 11; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980); and John Howard Schtitz, Paul and the Anatomy ofApostolic Authority (SNTSMS 26; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975).



Frilingos: "For My Child, Onesimus" 93

times it implied power."8 Martin concludes provocatively that Paul used the

complex of meaning produced by the slave metaphor to privilege his position vis-a-vis his readers.9 Similarly, family imagery held potential for advancing Paul's concerns.

The present analysis focuses on the effects of family metaphors in the letter to Philemon.10 Within a first-century, Mediterranean environment, this household imagery signaled an assortment of notions-not only intimacy and affection but also economics and paternal authority." I suggest that the epistle's family language constructs a rhetorical household that rivals Philemon's actual household. In this new setting Onesimus becomes the apostle's mechanism, technology, or what I term Paul's zTicvo(v)-ology of power.

II. The Roman Domus

The study of metaphor and representation sharpens the difficulty of con-

necting language (i.e., linguistic signifiers) to social reality (i.e., actual signified things).2" The case of the ancient family is particularly problematic, for "neither ancient Greek nor Hebrew nor Latin had words that directly translate what modern Western English means by 'family' or 'house.'"13 The inexact correspondence between the English term and the ancient societal unit reflects the

8 Martin, Slavery, 147.

9 "One powerful weapon in Paul's rhetorical arsenal was his surprising self-portrayal as a slave of Christ and a slave to all" (Martin, Slavery, 146); but see Harrill's reservations about Mar- tin's assessment of slave language (Manumission, 9 n. 11 and 29 n. 64).

10 Examples of family metaphors pervade the Pauline corpus; see, e.g., Gal 4:19; 1 Thess 2:11; and Phil 2:22. Interest in the early Christian "family" remains high; see Andrew S. Jacobs, "A Family Affair: Marriage, Class, and Ethics in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles," Journal of Early Christian Studies 7/1 (1999) 105-38. A good introduction and bibliography can be found in Con- structing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor (ed. Halvor Moxnes; London/New York: Routledge, 1997). See also Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches (The Family, Religion, and Culture; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997).

11 1 Cor 4:15 indicates the paternal metaphor's force: "For though you might have ten thou- sand guardians (nat8aywyouS;) in Christ, you do not have many fathers (xtaTpa;). Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father (6yvvroca) through the gospel." See O. Larry Yarbrough, "Parents and Children in the Letters of Paul," in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks (ed. L. Michael White and 0. Larry Yarbrough; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 131-32.

12 See the essays in The New Cultural History (ed. Lynn Hunt; Berkeley: University of Cali- fornia Press, 1989), especially the discussion of mentalitis within the Annales school of economic and social history ("Introduction: History, Culture, and Text," 1-22).

13 Osiek and Balch, Families in the New Testament World, 6. For a full discussion of methodological issues, see Halvor Moxnes, "What Is Family? Problems in Constructing Early Christian Families," in Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor (ed. Halvor Moxnes; London/New York: Routledge, 1997) 13-41.




substantial differences that exist between modern and ancient family structures. It should also caution scholars against assuming a transcendent or "natu- ral" status for family language. Just as kinship patterns vary according to time and place, so terms such as "child" evoke different sentiments in different contexts.14 To ascertain what family language may have connoted for the apostle and his readers, I begin with a survey of Roman household roles and discourse.

Following recent NT scholarship, I often adopt Latin household terminology in this discussion even though Paul and his readers communicated in Greek.

Imperial Rome, as recent studies demonstrate, constructed socially the Asian urban environments in which Paul and his audience lived.15 Latin terms, then,

prove extremely useful for representing the first-century Mediterranean family and household.

What was the Roman family?16 Roman vocabulary for the kinship group included familia, domus (literally, "house" or "household") and possessive adjectives such as mei or tui ("my people" or "your people"; see 1 Cor 1:11).17 No certain conclusions have been reached about the basic anthropological organization of the Roman family. An influential analysis of funerary inscrip- tions contends that the average Roman family looked like the modemrn "nuclear

family," constituted by the father-mother-child triad.8i Recently, however, this

A4 See Lloyd DeMause, "The Evolution of Childhood," in The History of Childhood (ed. L.

DeMause; New York: Harper & Row, 1974) 1-73. 15 For a discussion of the "Augustan cultural revolution," see Stanley K. Stowers, A Rereading

of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994) 52-59. Martin observes: ". .. even though many people in the countryside may have been relatively untouched by Roman ideas and practices, people in those cities, including all the earliest Christians, could

scarcely have avoided such influence" (Slavery, xviii). See also W. K. Lacey, "Patria Potestas," in The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives (ed. Beryl Rawson; London/Sydney: Croom Helm, 1986) 121-44. Many scholars have paralleled the hierarchical concerns of the NT Haustafeln with ancient descriptions of Augustan patriarchy. See Cassius Dio 50.28.3, cited by David L. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter (SBLMS 26; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981) 71; and Osiek and Balch, Families in the New Testament World, 118-21.

16 I restrict this survey of the Roman household to the paterfamilias and the child; other

aspects of Roman family life, however, have attracted much scholarly attention. For example, a

large body of secondary literature about marriage relations and the paterfamilias exists; Paul

Veyne's controversial treatment of this subject remains the starting point for most discussions of Roman family life ("The Roman Empire," in A History of Private Life, vol. 1 [ed. Paul Veyne; Cam-

bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987] 5-205); see also his earlier essay, "La Famille et l'Amour sous le Haut-Empire Roman," Annales ESC 23 (1978) 35-63.

17 Keith R. Bradley, Discovering the Roman Family (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) 4. Kate Cooper's chapter "Private Lives, Public Meaning" describes the Roman domus's public character and cultural significance (The Virgin and the Bride [Cambridge, MA/ London: Harvard University Press, 1996] 3-20).

18 Richard P. Sailer and Brian D. Shaw, "Tombstones and Roman Family Relations in the

Principate: Civilians, Soldiers, and Slaves,"JRS 74 (1984) 124-56. Literary support for their view is found in Lucretius 3.894. and Cicero Off 1.58.




study has been challenged on statistical and methodological grounds.19 The nuclear family model is misleading because it insinuates a sharp distinction between private and public realms to which Romans probably did not adhere. As Keith R. Bradley notes, "the Roman household was multifunctional, a place of constant social, economic, and political intercourse, not simply a place of habitation."20 Moreover, the model does not account for the role played by slaves within the Roman domus.21 Slaves generally played a significant role in households throughout the Roman Empire, and certain slaves occupied important and powerful positions within the domus.22 This latter group includes those who served in "the role of slave agents as indisputable, authoritative rep- resentatives of the powerful owner."23 Household slaves, then, extended the activity and influence of the ancient domus well beyond that of the modem nuclear family.

Romans also held expectations about roles within the domus that contrast sharply with modem sensibilities. The difference is particularly apparent with respect to the Roman child; literary and epigraphic evidence attests to the economics of childhood and the authority of the paterfamilias (i.e., "the head of the household"). The physician Soranus's criteria for determining whether or not a child is worth raising, for example, reveal the material concerns of parents (Gyn. 2.79).24 But the child was not viewed simply as a burden on family finances. Apprenticeship documents from Roman Egypt indicate that most Roman children faced the prospect of labor early in life, and literary sources confirm that the child was an important contributor to the household. To cite

19 Dale B. Martin, "The Construction of the Ancient Family: Methodological Considera- tions,"JRS 86 (1996) 40-60.

20 Bradley, Discovering, 8-9. Bradley cites Cicero's description of a Roman noble who advises visitors to his house on a variety of public matters (De or. 3.133).

21 On ancient slavery, see Moses I. Finley, Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology (New York:

Viking, 1980); and Keith Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves (Sociological Studies in Roman History 1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978). For slavery and the NT, see the works of Harrill and Martin mentioned above and the older study by S. Scott Bartchy,

MAAAONXPI-TAI: First-

Century Slavery and the Interpretation of First Corinthians 7:21 (SBLDS 11; Missoula, MT: Soci- ety of Biblical Literature, 1973).

22 Wayne Meeks observes that the "most mobile category" of slaves belonged to thefamilia caesaris (i.e., "the household of Caesar"), which functioned as the "civil service of the empire" (The First Urban Christians [New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1983] 21). See also Dimitris J. Kyrtatas's discussion of the familia caesaris (The Social Structure of the Early Christian Communi- ties [London/New York: Verso, 1987] 75-86).

23 Martin, Slavery, 60. 24 In a sympathy letter Plutarch (or someone writing pseudonymously) observes that the

deaths of infants and children are "the deaths which we can bear easily and cheerfully" (Cons. ad Apoll., Mor. 113D). Infanticide in the Roman Empire was common; see Hopkins's brief discussion (Death and Renewal [Sociological Studies in Roman History 2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983] 225-26); and Beryl Rawson, "Adult-Child Relationships in Roman Society," in Mar- riage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome (ed. Beryl Rawson; Oxford: Clarendon, 1991) 5-30.




one example, Plutarch's argument in On Affection towards Children (De amore

prolis, Mor 493-97) that affection is the true basis for procreation presupposes that "parents did indeed look to their children for material return."25 A palpa- ble sense of loss sublimates an anxiety about family finances in this common

epitaph: "Those who ought to have made a tomb for their parents died and are here duly honored by their afflicted fathers."26 The child's death disrupted both the emotional stability and the material expectations of the parents.27

The paterfamilias dominated Roman discourse about the family. Equipped with patria potestas ("paternal power"), the paterfamilias exercised authority over all members of the domus. This right "excluded any possibility that the

paterfamilias's capacity to manage the household as an economic unit might be

challenged." 28 The ubiquitous idealization of potestas, which was often described as a distinctly Roman innovation, indicates how highly Romans valued this promise of power. The second-century CE jurist Gaius states that

potestas is a "right peculiar to Roman citizens, for there are virtually no other

peoples who have such power over their children as we have" (Inst. 1.55). The historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus locates the emergence of potestas at the

origins of Rome: "the founder of the Roman constitution gave the father unre- stricted power over his sons" (Ant. Rom. 2.26.1). Scholars point out, though, that practical and legal considerations mitigated the paterfamilias's absolute

authority (i.e., ius vitae necisque, or the power over life and death).29 Moreover, Fronto's touching account of his toddler's first word ("da" or "give") is evidence of Roman parental affection (i.e., pietas) and indulgence (Ep. ad amicos, 1.12).30 Even in literature that valorizes potestas, cross-currents exist: first-

century CE pseudonymous advice attributed to Plutarch suggests that fathers

25 See Bradley's discussion of this epigraphic and literary evidence (Discovering, 103-24). 26 Greek text and analysis in R. B. Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epigraphs (Urbana:

University of Illinois Press, 1942) 184-91. 27 See Suzanne Dixon's comments on the topic (The Roman Family [Baltimore: Johns Hop-

kins University Press, 1992] 102-16); and Hopkins, Death, 217-26. 28 The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (ed. Jane F. Gardner and Thomas Wiedemann;

London/New York: Routledge, 1991) 5. See also Osiek and Balch, who note thatfamilia usually refers to "all persons and objects under the legal power (patria potestas) of the male head of the

family" (Families in the New Testament World, 6). 29 See Eve Maria Lassen, "The Roman Family: Ideal and Metaphor," in Constructing Early

Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor (ed. Halvor Moxnes; London/New York: Routledge, 1997) 106-7; and Osiek and Balch, Families in the New Testament World, 57. See also Richard P. Saller's comments on the gap between Roman ideals and everyday life (Patriarchy, Property, and Death in the Roman Family [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994] 102-32).

30 See Thomas Wiedemann's discussion of Fronto's correspondence (Adults and Children in the Roman Empire [London: Routledge, 1989] 93-99). For a full discussion of Roman parental affection toward children, see Emiel Eyben, "Fathers and Sons," in Marriage, Divorce, and Chil- dren in Ancient Rome (ed. Beryl Rawson; Oxford: Clarendon, 1991) 114-43.




should not be "utterly harsh and austere in their nature, but they should, in many cases, concede some shortcomings to the younger persons, and remind themselves that they once were young" (De liberis educandis, Mor. 13D). Still the Roman Empire invested heavily in an omnipotent paternal image by casting its authoritarian leading citizen, the emperor, as "a sort of paterfamilias with very wide discretionary powers."31 This macrocosmic domus manifested itself in imperial public imagery (e.g., the Ara Pacis altar) and in honorific titles (e.g., Pater Patriae).32 All Romans belonged to a "benevolent patriarchy."33

Roman society attached a range of values to family terminology. For exam-

ple, material concerns permeate much ancient discussion of children. This is not to say that Romans only construed childhood in economic terms; on the

contrary, this issue seems always to be enmeshed in a web of notions (including intimacy and authority) about the child's cultural significance. Paul draws on this network of meanings when he introduces family metaphors into his epistles. On one occasion Paul invokes family language to express affection (1 Thess 2:11-12); at other times this imagery emphasizes the household's economic functions and hierarchical structure (see Gal 4:1-7; 1 Cor 4:14-21; and the Deutero-Pauline Haustafeln). To aver that Paul's "fatherhood is ... a transpar- ent mask for his apostolic role" is to ignore the depth of meaning that family language held for Paul's audience.34 This language must have resonated imme- diately with readers whose social identities were defined in large measure by their household roles.35 In a world saturated with family imagery, the household was both a convenient meeting place and an epistolary leitmotif for the apostle. As O. Larry Yarbrough notes, Paul's family metaphors were "rooted in the day to day lives of the people to whom he proclaimed his gospel."36 Paul's epistle to Philemon illustrates the manifold rhetorical possibilities that household language held for the skillful letter writer.37

31 Lacey, "Patria Potestas," 125; see also Lassen, "Ideal and Metaphor," 113-14. 32 Lassen, "Ideal and Metaphor," 112-14. In 2 BCE, Augustus accepted the title Pater Patriae

(see Res Gestae 35; this title was first given to the legendary Romulus [Cicero Rep. 1.64]). On the Ara Pacis and Augustus's family, see Paul Zanker, The Power ofImages in the Age ofAugustus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988) 101-66.

33 For "benevolent patriarchalism" and the irony suggested by this phrase, see Martin, Corinthian, 42-49.

34 Petersen, Rediscovering, 131. Petersen's discussion of father imagery in Pauline literature is brief but'insightful (pp. 128-31).

35 The issuance of the Augustan family laws (e.g., Lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus and Lex Papia Poppea, often called Lex Iulia et Poppea; also Lex lulia de adulteriis coercendis), which bestowed economic and social privileges upon married couples with children, probably reinforced this mode of self-definition. For a discussion of the legislation's social impact, see Dixon, Roman Family, 78-80; see also Lassen's brief comments ("Ideal and Metaphor," 108).

36 Yarbrough, "Parents," 140. Yarbrough notes that Jewish traditions probably shaped much

of Paul's parent-child imagery. 37 There is broad scholarly agreement that the rhetorical and literary conventions of Paul's




III. Paul's tivo(v)-ology of Power

A long list of scholarship trails behind Paul's brief epistle to Philemon. Some critical issues, such as the epistle's authenticity, remain unquestioned, while others continue to inspire new theories and debate.38 Perhaps the most

intriguing aspect of the letter is its narrative background.39 What series of events precipitated the writing of this letter? Under what circumstances did Paul meet the slave Onesimus? Is the slave accused of malfeasance? Is Ones- imus a fugitive or an envoy dispatched to Paul?40 Unfortunately, neither the letter itself nor other early Christian literature provides much data for answers.

day influenced the apostle's letter writing. See Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman

Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); William G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973); and David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environ- ment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 158-225. A recent analysis is Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991). F. Forrester Church's study of Philemon shows that it borrows Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions to make its point ("Rhetorical Structure and Design in Paul's Letter to Philemon," HTR 71 [1978] 17-33). Church's detailed essay diagrams the letter according to the rhetorical structure (the exordium, vv. 4-7; the proof, vv. 8-16; and the

peroration, vv. 17-22) outlined by Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian. Church engages with two of

John White's investigations of the ancient epistle ("The Structural Analysis of Philemon: a Point of

Departure in the Formal Analysis of the Pauline Letter" [SBLASP; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1971] 1-47; and The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter [SBLDS 2; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972]); see now idem, Light from Ancient Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).

38For an excellent overview of scholarship, see Wolfgang Schenk, "Der brief des Paulus an Philemon in der neueren Forschung (1945-87)," ANRW 2.25.4 (1987) 3438-95. S. Scott Bartchy's article is a useful starting point ("Philemon, Epistle to," ABD, 5.105-10). The classic commentary on the Greek text is J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (Lynn, MA:

Hendrickson, 1981 [first published in 1875]). Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon

(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) is perhaps the best English commentary on Philemon available. In addition to Callahan, Embassy, recent commentaries include Ralph P. Martin, Colos- sians and Philemon (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971); C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles of Paul the

Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon (CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975); Peter Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an Philemon (EKKNT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1975); and James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1996). A scholarly majority favors Philemon's authenticity; see Shenk, "Der Brief," 3142-45.

39 See Petersen, Rediscovering, 65-78.

40 While questions about the date, provenance, and intended audience of the letter continue to attract attention, it is the mystery of how Onesimus met Paul that has emerged, most recently, as the locus of debate. Sara C. Winter's provocative 1987 article, in which she argues that "Onesimus was with Paul in prison because the former had been sent by the congregation in Colossae," has

generated much discussion ("Paul's Letter to Philemon," NTS 33 [1987] 3). Other scholars have

adopted Winter's "not-a-runaway" theory with a variety of modifications; Peter Lampe, as noted above, suggests that Onesimus was following Greco-Roman convention by seeking a third party, an amicus domini, to negotiate on his behalf ("Keine 'Sklavenflucht,"' 135-37). The discussion contin-

ues, however, as other scholars have also used Roman legal texts to revive the traditional under-

standing of Onesimus as an escaped slave. See John G. Norling, "Onesimusfugitivus: A Defense of




A few parts of the story, however, can be established to the satisfaction of most commentators.41 First, Paul writes the letter from prison (Phlm 13) and sends the epistle through Onesimus, a slave (Phlm 16), to Philemon, Ones- imus's master (Phlm 12, 17).42 Second, Paul indicates a strained relationship between slave and master when he writes, "If he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account" (Phlm 18). Third, Paul and Philemon appear to be on good terms with each other (Phlm 1, 7). Finally, a request of the apostle occasions the letter: "Confident of your obedience, I am writing to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say" (Phlm 21). It is unclear, though, precisely what Paul expects the slaveholder to do.

The letter's charged setting deserves special attention. The first reading of the epistle takes place within the public space of the domus.3 The letter does not represent private correspondence between the apostle and Philemon; rather, it is addressed to several people, including the church in Philemon's house (Phlm 2).44 One can easily overlook the letter's multiple recipients (i.e., Philemon, Apphia, Archippus, and the household church), since the second person pronoun remains singular throughout the body of the letter. The closing request and benediction, though, employ the plural second person pronoun, reminding the reader that this epistle was read aloud to Philemon and the household cic?k•ota. Framed by the agonistic code of ancient Mediterranean life, this public hearing raised the honor-shame stakes both for Paul and Phile- mon. The stage is set: Will Philemon publicly deny the apostolic prisoner's plea? Ronald F. Hock parallels the "rhetorical situation" of Philemon to the public assemblies depicted in Greek romances; in Chaereas and Callirhoe (1.1), for example, the people of Syracuse call an cic?k•ota to debate a poten-

the Runaway Slave Hypothesis," JSNT 41 (1991) 97-119; and J. D. M. Derrett, "The Function of the Epistle to Philemon," ZNW 79 (1988) 63-91.

41 Callahan's recent commentary deviates dramatically from the traditional scholarly reading of Philemon. Callahan locates the origin of thefugitivus scholarly hypothesis in John Chrysostom's misguided exegesis and argues that Paul seeks to resolve a fraternal squabble between Onesimus and Philemon. In other words, "slave" is the metaphor here, while the family language reflects an actual biological kinship between the parties (Embassy, esp. 15-19). For criticism of Callahan's theory (first proposed in "Paul's Epistle to Philemon: Toward an Alternative Argumentum," HTR 86 [1993] 357-76), see Margaret M. Mitchell, "John Chrysostom on Philemon: A Second Look," HTR 88 (1995) 135-48, esp. 147 n. 47; for Callahan's response to Mitchell, see HTR 88 (1995) 49-56. I remain convinced that Onesimus was indeed a slave (v. 16).

42 Following Lohse (Philemon, 186-88), I see no reason to subscribe to John Knox's view (Philemon Among the Letters of Paul, 60-70), recently revived by Winter, that Archippus was Onesimus's owner.

43 Winter gives reasons for construing the letter as a "public" epistle ("Paul's Letter," 1). 44 F. F. Bruce appears to be one of the first scholars to recognize the significance of this pub-

lic situation; he suggests that Paul, by making the dialogue public, intends to put Philemon "on the spot" ("St. Paul in Rome II: The Epistle to Philemon," BJRL 48 [1966] 95); see also Petersen, Rediscovering, 268-69.




tial marriage.45 Similarly, the issues raised by Paul's letter to Philemon are sub-

ject to the rules governing public discourse. According to these rules, Philemon would receive Paul's "appeal" as a challenge to his honor. Paul prepares for the contest with the approval that typifies his epistolary thanksgivings: "I have indeed received much joy and encouragement from your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you, brother" (Phlm 7). This conventional approbation reminds Philemon of his past allegiance to the apostle and also contains the first example of Paul's strategic use of family imagery; by calling Philemon "brother" (the vocative 68e•k• here), the letter invents a

relationship that places the apostle and the household paterfamilias on an

equal footing. At this point Paul alludes to the impetus for this epistle: "For this reason,

though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty, yet I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love-and I, Paul, do this as an old man, and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus" (Phlm 8-9). F. Forrester Church observes that this passage is an example of avtitpaat;-"the open abandonment of an apparently strong line of

argument.'"46 This rhetorical tech-

nique allows the letter at once to demand and to beg some action of Philemon. A second device, Paul's

ndc•o;-filled self-portrayal as an old man, is also

designed to sway the audience in favor of the beleaguered apostle.47 Surpris- ingly, the letter never directly expresses what the apostle hopes to gain from these elaborate moves; the epistle has style, but where is the substance?48 Phlm 10 intimates that the apostle's plea relates somehow to Onesimus: "I appeal to

you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprison- ment." Still the letter's purpose remains obscure. Does the apostle desire Onesi- mus's manumission, Philemon's forgiveness of the slave, or the slave himself?

The family imagery found in the epistle suggests that these household

metaphors constitute a strategy for challenging and displacing Philemon's

authority and his claim to the slave Onesimus.49 Paul commences the plan by

45 Ronald F. Hock, "A Support for His Old Age: Paul's Place on Behalf of Onesimus," in The

Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks (ed. L. Michael White and 0. Larry Yarbrough; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 76-77. Bradley also notes parallels between

public assemblies and the Roman domus (Discovering, 9). 46 Church writes: "This has the effect of establishing an afortiori argument, reinforcing

everything that follows" ("Rhetorical," 25). 47 See Hock, "Support," 77. 48 Cf. Pliny's explicit statement: "I am afraid, were I to join my entreaties with his, I should

seem rather to compel, than request you to forgive him" (Ep. 9.21) 49 Contra Lloyd A. Lewis's essay, "An African American Appraisal of the Paul-Onesimus-

Philemon Triangle," in Stony the Road We Trod: African American Biblical Interpretation (ed. Cain Hope Felder; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 232-46. Lewis also focuses on Philemon's family language, but argues that its ultimate effect was to establish "a pseudo-familial relationship among peers" (p. 236). For a similar perspective, see J. Paul Sampley, Pauline Partnership in Christ




casting Philemon and himself as brothers (Phlm 7); now Phlm 10 introduces another household member-Paul's child, Onesimus-and changes the previ- ously egalitarian set of relations into a structure similar to the Roman domus. The apostle adopts the paternal role (Ayivvrlaa) and restates this "father-child"

relationship by graphically identifying Onesimus as his own oinXdyva (Phlm 12, cf. Phlm 17).50 Here the letter incorporates a Greco-Roman trope in which the writer identifies his or her offspring as the writer's mirror image. Cassius Dio, for instance, writes: "How can it be anything but a pleasure to raise up from the ground a child ... a physical and mental mirror of yourself, so that, as it grows up another self is created?" (56.3.4). Inside the epistolary household reside the paterfamilias Paul and his rivov Onesimus.

This rhetorical domus dramatically contradicts and challenges the set of relations within Philemon's actual household. Specifically, this epistolary household subverts Philemon's authority and his claim to Onesimus in two

ways. First, Paul replaces Philemon as the paterfamilias; this effectively pushes Philemon's authority outside the epistle's margins. Second, the apostle's parent-child relationship with Onesimus "supersedes any slavish role Onesi- mus may have served in Philemon's household."51 In other words, the apostle possesses a greater "right" to the slave than does the slaveholder. This particu- lar metaphor establishes a link between the apostle and Onesimus that Phile- mon cannot outdo. Elsewhere the epistle maintains the claim that Onesimus

"belongs" to the apostle. The letter introduces Onesimus as Paul's authoritative

representative, imploring Philemon to "welcome him as you would welcome me" (Phlm 17). The re-scripting of Onesimus's role creates a complex sce- nario.52 No longer under the master's control, Onesimus arrives at Philemon's household as Paul's agent to deliver the apostle's letter, which announces: "I

appeal to you for [ntepi] my child, Onesimus" (Phlm 10). In view of these many claims, v. 10 appears to be simultaneously an intervention on behalf of Onesi- mus and a simple request for the slave.53 The irony, of course, is that Onesimus

(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980); and Petersen, Rediscovering, 131. I maintain that letter's family metaphors assert the apostle's authority over against Philemon and Onesimus.

50 Perhaps the letter reinscribes this identification in v. 20: "Refresh my heart (jLov rd

or•cXdyXva) in Christ." There is clearly a connection between this request and the earlier commen- dation (v. 7) of Philemon for refreshing "the hearts of the saints." Dr. W. Barnes Tatum, in a semi- nar on Pauline literature, first suggested to me the rhetorical force of orckdyXva in this letter.

51 Hock, "Support," 81. 52 See Karl Olav Sandnes's analysis of Philemon in which he views the request in v. 17 for a

"hospitable welcome" for Onesimus as a symbolic sign of unity within the household church

("Equality within Patriarchal Structures: Some New Testament Perspectives on the Christian Fel- lowship as a Brother- or Sisterhood and a Family," in Constructing Early Christian Families: Fam- ily as Social Reality and Metaphor [ed. Halvor Moxnes; London/New York: Routledge, 1977] 156-63).

53 The precise meaning of repi in this phrase has generated some scholarly discussion. Lohse




comes to Philemon's door already as the apostle's servant (i.e., his letter- carrier), and the epistle's language confirms Onesimus's new role as Paul's mes-

senger before the eyes and ears of the domus (Phlm 17).54 This strategic representation of the slave defacto (if not de iure) transfers Onesimus from Philemon's control to Paul's service.55

Other devices combine with these family metaphors to privilege Paul's

position over against Philemon. A famous instance of Pauline wordplay occurs in the "useless/useful" pun on the name "Onesimus" (which means "useful") in v. 11: "Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful both to you and me."56 This calculated ambiguity transforms the slave's name into a rhetorical mechanism for the skilled

d6pxtcr•tov (1 Cor 3:10). Not only has Paul

forged a familial bond with Onesimus; he has also molded the slave into an industrious servant.57 The boost in Onesimus's productivity tempts Paul to

keep Onesimus for himself (Phlm 13). The key detail is that the slave has

improved under Paul's watch; this point would probably carry significant weight in the typical Roman domus, which valued efficiency in children and slaves. The apostle is superior to the slaveholder.

Onesimus, Paul's useful child, is a tool-a ricvo(v)-ology of power-that the apostle employs to disassemble the structure of Philemon's domestic command. A final example demonstrates how the apostle manipulates family lan-

guage to shift power relationships. When Paul asks that Philemon receive Onesimus "no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother-

especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord" (Phlm 16), he exerts enormous pressure on the actual social roles occupied by Onesimus and Philemon. Paul first denies the validity of Onesimus's prior slave

interprets it to mean "on behalf of' (Philemon, 199). Winter notes that "'apaicak& [tv't] nepi tvoq is a formula [found in the papyri] in which the noun following the preposition is the object of the

request" ("Paul's Letter," 6). Although most scholars follow Lohse, Winter's evidence suggests that the phrase may have possessed an ambiguous or double meaning. See also Schenk, "Der Brief," 3466-67.

4 J. Duncan M. Derrett notes: "if Philemon should receive Onesimus as Paul, Paul (the non-

owner) has denominated and appointed... Onesimus as his agent" ("The Function of the Epistle to Philemon" ZNW 79 [1988] 88; emphasis Derrett's). See also Margaret M. Mitchell, "New Testa- ment Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Exam-

ple of Timothy and Titus,"JBL 111 (1992) 641-62. 5 It seems likely that Paul intends to ward off Philemon's objections to this arrangement with

his reminder in v. 19: "I say nothing about you owing me even your own self." 56 Lohse, Philemon, 201. The wordplay continues with Xptor6q embedded in the dXprlotov

(i.e., a-Xptot6q)/expir•rov opposition (Winter, "Paul's Letter," 4); but see Derrett, "Functions,"

64.

57 Contra Lewis, who writes: "Surely Paul could not be speaking of the usefulness/useless- ness of Onesimus as a slave. Otherwise we would have to read the latter half of verse 11 as a sign that conversion's greatest effect on Onesimus was the power for greater diligence in his chores" ("Philemon-Paul-Onesimus," 245).




relationship with Philemon (ouxickt c•; 80oov), then he quickly substitutes a fraternal connection in its place (a6E9X6bv a"yainr6v).58 For a moment Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus are equals. Yet Paul's hyperbole-"especially to me but how much more to you"--excludes the apostle from the egalitarian rela-

tionship of Philemon and Onesimus. Philemon and Onesimus are not only brothers but also children, and Paul fills the paternal role. By implication, then, the letter depicts Onesimus and Philemon as gicva and Paul as the authoritative paterfamilias.59 The epistle's rhetorical domus is now complete: Paul stands at the pinnacle of this domestic triangle, and Philemon and Onesimus are the two points that connect its base.

IV. "One Thing More": Paul's Gentle Compulsion

Philemon, as Paul's rivov, is subject to the will of the apostolic paterfamilias. The indirect annexation of Philemon in this parent-child imagery indicates apprehension on the apostle's part. Perhaps Paul feels some trepidation about his brazen challenge to Philemon's potestas and honor. In view of the

authority that the Roman household assigned to the paterfamilias, this is a rea- sonable conjecture. I do not wish to understate, however, the force of the epistle's formidable rhetoric. The letter's family imagery generates a complex mixture of affectionate and authoritative claims.60 Moreover, the public nature of the domus heightened the effect of such language. By emphasizing his total control over the situation, Paul shames Philemon in his own house: "I wanted to keep him with me ... but I preferred to do nothing without your consent, in order that your good deed might be voluntary and not something forced" (Phlm 13-14). The apostle simultaneously subverts Philemon's "right" to the slave and provides him with a "face-saving" response: Philemon's submission should be

58 The phrase "in the flesh and in the Lord" is particularly difficult to understand. It is unpar- alleled in Pauline literature and makes little sense in connection with

6SeXl,5q. How is Philemon

supposed to view Onesimus as a brother "in the flesh"? Some commentators have suggested that this indicates Onesimus will still be a slave "in the flesh" (e.g., Dunn, Philemon, 336; Martin, Phile- mon, 166); others beg the question: "Both at work and in church the new and sanctified relationship between master and servant, brother and brother, will assert itself' (William Hendrickson, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Philemon [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979] 17). Callahan uses this verse to support his theory about the biological kinship between Philemon and Onesimus (Embassy, 44-50).

59 Yarbrough makes a similar observation on the basis of Phlm 19, but fails to consider the impact of such a move on the relations of power between the apostle and Philemon ("Parents," 138).

60 See Castelli, Imitating Paul, 101. Castelli emphasizes the authority associated with the father image, whereas other scholars stress the intimacy evoked by such metaphors (e.g., Holm- berg, Paul and Power, 77-79); see Yarbrough: "intimacy is in fact the dominant motif in all of Paul's metaphorical applications of parent-child imagery" ("Parents," 132). I contend that the reader cannot separate out authority from intimacy in Philemon.




viewed (by the household) as an honorable act of free will. The challenge remains shaming, nevertheless, for it publicly questions Philemon's ability to

manage his own household. Another example of epistolary audacity occurs in Philemon's final lines.

The letter's conclusion, its "apostolic parousia," weaves together intimidation and tenderness: "One thing more-prepare a guest room for me, for I am hop- ing through your prayers to be restored to you" (Phlm 22). In other words, whether or not Philemon agrees to the apostle's conditions, Paul himself will soon return to set the record straight. The apostle also projects his own desire (i.e., to visit Philemon's household) onto his audience (tr6v tpoGEuXcv U•pcv). The verse reminds Philemon of the apostle's divinely ordained mission and his

authority, granted by the prayers of the domus itself, to interfere in Philemon's household operations. Despite its threatening undercurrents, however, the

travelogue maintains a warm and familiar tone. It does not command obedience but expresses the hope for a family reunion. This "gentle compulsion" contrasts sharply with other, less subtle disciplinary moments within the Pauline

corpus: '"What would you prefer? Am I to come to you with a stick, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?" (1 Cor 4:21).61 Paul's epistle to Philemon is not meant to frighten (see 2 Cor 10:9).

The letter, then, is concerned less with Onesimus's situation than with Paul's own status.62 This assessment of the epistle resolves somewhat the ten- sion between Paul's ostensible goal of helping Onesimus and his decision to send the slave back to an angry Philemon. If Philemon accepts Onesimus in accordance with the apostle's terms, then the slaveholder must also acknowl-

edge Paul's authoritative presence in his family affairs.63 Onesimus will remain "forever" in Philemon's household as a sign of Paul's domestic power.

61 Lightfoot originated the "gentle compulsion" phrase vis-4-vis this epistle (Philemon, 345).

Ralph Martin describes the Philemon travelogue as "a subtle incentive" (Philemon, 169). 62 Petersen reaches similar conclusions about the letter but sees Paul asserting his own

"translocal" authority over against Philemon's "local" authority (Rediscovering, 287-302). I suggest that Paul challenges Philemon's household position through the family discourse that constructs it.

63 See Mitchell, "New Testament Envoys," 649-51



" 'For My Child, Onesimus': Paul and Domestic Power in Philemon." Journal of Biblical Literature 119...

Documents

Transcript of " 'For My Child, Onesimus': Paul and Domestic Power in Philemon." Journal of Biblical Literature 119...