Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:56:20.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Prisoner Paul in the Eyes of Onesimus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

B. M. Rapske
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Philemon 10 gives a clear indication that the slave Onesimus and the apostle Paul came to be together in a place of imprisonment. How exactly this transpired is a matter of debate. Some have simply asserted that ‘Paul somehow got to meet Onesimus’, or that Onesimus ‘came into touch with Paul’. Others, however, have offered one or more of several hypotheses.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , April 1991 , pp. 187 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Soesilo, D., ‘The Story Line in Translating Philemon’, BT 34 (1983) 425.Google Scholar

2 Guthrie, D., New Testament Introduction (3rd ed.; Downers Grove: IVP, 1970) 635Google Scholar. Wright, N. T., The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon (TNTC 12; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 166, is only prepared to offer that ‘Whether by design or sheer providence, he had met Paul’.Google Scholar

3 Bruce, F. F., The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984) 213, after offering several suggestions, concludes: ‘… the possibilities which might be canvassed are numerous’.Google Scholar

4 Lampe, P., ‘Keine “Sklavenflucht” des Onesimus’, ZNW 76 (1985) 135–7.Google Scholar

5 Winter, S. B. C., ‘Paul's Letter to Philemon’, NTS 33 (1987) 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Schenk, W., ‘Der Brief des Paulus an Philemon in der neueren Forschung (1945–1987)’, ANRW 2/25. 4 (1987) 3439–95.Google Scholar

Bruce, F. F., ‘St. Paul in Rome. 2. The Epistle to Philemon’, BJRL 48 (1965yy–1966) 89–90Google Scholar, offers: ‘It could, I suppose, be argued that his master sent him to Paul to fulfil some commission, and that Onesimus overstayed his leave – amore Pauli, perhaps (why not?) – and had to have a note of excuse from Paul begging pardon for his unduly long absence.’ In this case Onesimus would not be a fugitivus but an erro: one given to wandering or loitering on errands. For an elaboration of the distinction see The Digest of Justinian (4 volumes; ed. T. Mommsen, P. Krueger and A. Watson; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1985)21. 1. 17. 14.

6 Bartchy, S. S., ΜΑΛΟΝ ΧΡΗΣΑΙ: First-Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21 (SBLDS 11; Missoula: SBL, 1973) 38–9.Google Scholar

7 Had Onesimus disgraced his name while with Paul, one might expect Paul at Phlm 11 to have said something like τόν ποτέ σοι καί έμοί ἄχρηστον.

8 See Digest, 47. 2. 6. 1.

9 Buckland, W. W., The Roman Law of Slavery: The Condition of the Slave in Private Law From Augustus to Justinian (Cambridge: CUP, 1908) 267Google Scholar. A vicarius is a slave under another slave's authority. Buckland's source is primarily Digest, 21. 1. 17.

10 Finley, M. I., Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology (London: Chatto and Windus, 1980) 111Google Scholar, asserts that ‘fugitive slaves are almost an obsession in the sources …’.

11 See The Achievements of Augustus, 4. 25, cited in Wiedemann, T., Greek and Roman Slavery (London: Croom Helm, 1981) § 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 POxy, 1643.

13 Vincent, M. R., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon (ICC 46; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1897) 163Google Scholar writes that ‘sometimes the culprit was degraded from the house to the field or the workshop, and was often compelled to work in chains (Ter. Phorm. ii. 1, 17; Juv. viii. 180)’. Rupprecht, A. A, ‘Philemon’ (Expositor's Bible Commentary 11; ed. Gaebelein, F. E.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978) 460, notesGoogle Scholar: ‘They were frequently … put to tasks in which their life expectancy was very short.’

14 Petronius, Satyricon, 103, cited in Wiedemann, Slavery, § 218.

15 Digest, 48. 19. 38. 4. Vincent, Philemon, 163, describes one form of restraint called ‘the furca, a frame shaped like a V, and placed over the back of the shoulders, the hands being bound to the thighs’.

16 The collars, beyond informing the finder that the slave was a runaway, might give such information as the name of the slave owner, his address, and some indication of the reward to be received. See Wiedemann, , Slavery, §§ 219–21.Google Scholar

17 Derrett, J. D. M., ‘The Functions of the Epistle to Philemon’, ZNW 79 (1988) 74CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For additional sources, see Derrett, at 74 n. 62.Google Scholar

18 Digest, 48. 19. 38. 4.

19 Vincent, , Philemon, 163Google Scholar. Cf. Stuhlmacher, P., Der Brief an Philemon (EKKNT 18; Zürich: Benziger, 1975) 23.Google Scholar

20 Derrett, ‘Functions’, 74 n. 62xs.

21 Finley, , Slavery, 111.Google Scholar

22 Stuhlmacher, , Philemon, 22–3Google Scholar. Cf. Rupprecht, , ‘Philemon’, 460.Google Scholar

23 See the sources cited by Westermann, W. L., The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity (American Philosophical Society Memoirs 40; Philadelphia: APS, 1955) 107 n. 97, which connect runaway slaves and robber bands.Google Scholar

24 The great cities attracted fugitives and criminals. Blaiklock, E. M., From Prison in Rome: Letters to the Philippians and Philemon (London: Pickering and Inglis, 1964) 64Google Scholar picturesquely writes: ‘Rome, that roaring metropolis of the Empire, was described by one of its own historians as “the common sewer of the world” ’.

25 Stuhlmacher, , Philemon, 23Google Scholar. For examples, see Wiedemann, , Slavery, §§ 222–6.Google Scholar

26 Martin, R. P., Colossians and Philemon (NCB 48; London: Oliphants, 1974) 147Google Scholar. Martin himself does not entirely rule out this possibility. So also Minear, P. S. cited in Moule, C. F. D., The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon: An Introductory Commentary (CGTC; Cambridge: CUP, 1968) 20 n. 2.Google Scholar

27 Seneca, , Moral Essays (LCL; volume 1; tr. Basore, J. W.; London: William Heine-mann/New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1928) De Ira, 3. 32Google Scholar. Cf. Winter, S. B. C., ‘Methodological Observations on a New Interpretation of Paul's Letter to Philemon’, USOR 39 (1984) 204Google Scholar; Bruce, , ‘St Paul in Rome. 2.’, 88.Google Scholar

28 The assertion χωρίς τῆς γνώμης ούδέν ήθέλησα ποιῆσαι, ίνα ώς κατά άνάγκην τό άγαθόν σου ᾖ άλλά κατά έκούσιον at Phlm 14 also betrays the apostle's considerable discretionary powers.

29 Digest, 11. 4. 1Google Scholar. Cf. Richardson, P., Paul's Ethic of Freedom (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979) 47–8.Google Scholar

30 Bruce, , Philemon, 197Google Scholar. Duncan, G. S., St. Paul's Ephesian Ministry: A Reconstruction with Special Reference to the Ephesian Origin of the Imprisonment Epistles (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1929) 74 and 161, offers this as a likely hypothesis.Google Scholar

31 Digest, 11. 4. 1. 1.

32 Digest, 11. 4. 1. ‘Harbouring a runaway slave was a punishable offense, Oxyrhynchus papyri 12: 1422Google Scholar.’ notes Westermann, , Slave Systems, 105 n. 62Google Scholar. Cf. Buckland, , Roman, Law of Slavery, 269Google Scholar and the Aurelius Sarapammon document quoted by Martin, , Colossians and Philemon, 145.Google Scholar

33 Digest, 11. 4. 1. 1; 47. 2. 1. 3. See also Nicholas, B., ‘Furtum’, The Oxford Classical Dictionary (ed. Hammond, N. G. L. and Scullard, H. H.; 2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1970) 451.Google Scholar

34 Wright, , Colossians and Philemon, 166.Google Scholar

35 So Preiss, T., ‘Life in Christ and Social Ethics in the Epistle to Philemon’, in Life in Christ, T. Preiss (London: SCM, 1954) 35Google Scholar; Meeks, W. A., The Writings of St. Paul (New York: W. W. Norton, 1972) 102Google Scholar; Martin, , Colossians and Philemon, 145.Google Scholar

36 See n. 9 above.

37 Wiedemann, , Slavery, 195Google Scholar. Derrett, , ‘Functions’, 71Google Scholar, however, is probably correct in asserting that masters typically did not recoup the full value of their runaway slaves and the scheme generally depressed their market value.

38 Wiedemann, Cf., Slavery, 195Google Scholar; Derrett, , ‘Functions’, 71Google Scholar; Goodenough, E. R., ‘Paul and Onesimus’, HTR 22 (1929) 181–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 This would also have been the case if he had fled to the statue of an Emperor.

40 Goodenough, , ‘Paul and Onesimus’, 181.Google Scholar

41 Goodenough, , ‘Paul and Onesimus’, 181Google Scholar.Westermann, , Slave Systems, 108Google Scholar, writes: ‘In Greece the old practice of sanctuary at the altars of the gods against abuse by a master (dominus) with the right to demand sale to another owner still remained in force. Although Roman imperial law did not grant the right of temple asylum for slaves, the provision that a slave might demand sale out of the possession of an abusive master was accepted in the later Roman law.’ [My italics.] The Roman imperial law in question is De servo corrupto, cited in Apuleius, , The Golden Ass Being the Metamorphoses of Lucius Apuleius (LCL; tr. Adlington, W., rev. Gaselee, S.; London: William Heinemann/New York: Macmillan, 1915) 6. 4.Google Scholar

42 Goodenough, , ‘Paul and Onesimus’, 181–2Google Scholar. Goodenough elsewhere suggests that this right of asylum was restricted to Jewish coreligionists (cited by Westermann, , Slave Systems, 41 n. 21)Google Scholar. It is doubtful that Paul has the Deuteronomic legislation itself in view. He would hardly argue its binding character on one who was a non-Jew. Moreover, his plea that Philemon receive Onesimus back (ὃν ἀνέπεμψά σοι: Phlm 12) runs counter to the clear prohibition of the surrender of the runaway to the old master in Deuteronomy.

43 Goodenough, , ‘Paul and Onesimus’, 183.Google Scholar

44 ,Goodenough, , ‘Paul and Onesimus’, 183.Google Scholar

45 While Paul might construe himself to be a ‘slave of Christ’ at all times and in a variety of personal circumstances, as, for example, in the letter to the Philippians (1. 1; cf. 2. 22) which is a prison epistle, the expression νυνὶ δέ καί at Phlm 9 suggests that δέσμιοσ Xριστοῦ ΄Ιησοῦ is a recently appropriate addition to the self-designation πρεσβύτης. Paul only calls himself Christ's prisoner as it is temporally and circumstantially appropriate; i.e., when he is actually a prisoner.

46 Bruce, , Philemon, 197.Google Scholar

47 Cf. Goodenough, , ‘Paul and Onesimus’, 181Google Scholar and n. 4. For a discussion of the Roman family cult of the di penates and the lar familiaris, see the entries on ‘Lares’ and ‘Penates, Di’ by Rose, H. J. in Oxford Classical Dictionary 578–9 and 797–8 respectively.Google Scholar

48 Contra Preiss, ‘Life in Christ’, 35.

49 Lohmeyer, E., Die Briefe an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 9; 13th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1964) 172.Google Scholar

50 Derrett, , ‘Functions’, 72 and n. 50.Google Scholar

51 Tacitus records that Tiberius, because the growing laxity and impunity in the creation of the rights of asylum had resulted in temples being filled not only with the dregs of the slave population but also debtors and individuals suspected of capital crimes, submitted the claims of the Greek cities in the senatorial provinces to the senate's scrutiny. He continues: ‘A few abandoned without a struggle the claims they had asserted without a title: many relied on hoary superstitions or on their services to the Roman nation. It was an impressive spectacle which that day afforded, when the senate scrutinized the benefactions of its predecessors, the constitutions of the provinces, even the decrees of kings whose power antedated the arms of Rome, and the rites of the deities themselves, with full liberty as of old to confirm or change.’ (Tacitus, , Annals [LCL; volume 2; tr. Jackson, J.; London: William Heinemann/New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1931] 3. 60Google Scholar; cf. 3. 61–3). Suetonius, , The Lives of the Caesars (LCL; volume 1; tr. Rolfe, J. C.; London: William Heinemann/New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1928)Google ScholarTiberius, 37. 6, briefly notes that Tiberius ‘abolished the customary right of asylum in all parts of the empire [Abolevit et ius moremque asylorum, quae usquam erant]’. See Derrett's, brief discussion of these passages; ‘Functions’, 71–2.Google Scholar

52 Digest, 21. 1. 17. 4.

53 Lampe, , ‘Keine’, 135–6.Google Scholar

54 Pliny, , Letters (LCL; volume 2; tr. Melmoth, W., rev. Hutchinson, W. M. L.; London: William Heinemann/New York: Macmillan, 1915) 9. 21, 24.Google Scholar

55 Lampe, , ‘Keine’, 136Google Scholar, refers to the jurists Vivianus and Paulus. Paulus (late 2nd early 3rd century A.D.) writes that ‘a slave who takes himself off to a friend of his master to seek his intercession is not a fugitive [qui ad amicum domini deprecaturus confugit, non est fugitivus]; indeed, even if his thinking be that in the event of his not receiving assistance, he will not return home, he is not yet a fugitive, for flight requires not only the intention but also the act of flight’ (Digest, 21. 1. 43. 1). Vivianus (circa 98–117 A.D.) offers the opinion that the successful resolution of a falling out with the master might even be achieved by a slave's engaging the services of his own slave mother: ‘… if a slave leave his master and come back to his mother, the question whether he be a fugitive is one for consideration; if he so fled to conceal himself and not to return to his master, he is a fugitive; but he is no fugitive if he seeks that some wrongdoing of his may be better extenuated by his mother's entreaties [sin vero ut per matrem faciliorem deprecationem haberet delicti alicuius]’ (Digest, 21. 1. 17. 5).Google Scholar

56 Lampe, , ‘Keine’, 136.Google Scholar

57 Lampe, , ‘Keine’, 137.Google Scholar

58 Lamp, , ‘Keine’, 137.Google Scholar

59 Stuhlmacher, , Philemon, 23.Google Scholar

60 Digest, 21. 1. 17. 3.Google Scholar [My italics.] Cf. Buckland, , Roman Law of Slavery, 267–8 and 338.Google Scholar

61 If ‘he concealed himself until his master's wrath abated [quoad iracundia domini efferuesceret], he would not be a fugitive …’ (Digest, 21. 1. 17. 4).

62 See n. 55.

63 The case of Sabinianus and Pliny should not be rejected because the plea is on behalf of a ‘freedman’ (libertus) and not a slave. The conditions of contract between freedmen and their former masters – and now patrons – often left them in a state scarcely better than slavery. See Digest, 38. 1–5 and the discussion concerning poromoré-contracts and the relative lack of distinction between slaves and freedmen in Bartchy, ΜΑΛΟΝ, 72–82; esp. pages 82 and 115.

64 Suetonius, , Lives: Augustus, 2.17.Google Scholar

65 ,Dio, , Roman History (LCL; volume 6; tr. E. Cary; London: William Heinemann/New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1917) 54. 23. 2.Google Scholar

66 Seneca, , De Ira, 3. 40.Google Scholar

67 Suetonius, , Lives: Augustus, 2. 66.Google Scholar

68 Dio, , History, 54. 23. 5.Google Scholar

69 Pliny, , Letters, 9. 21.Google Scholar

70 Seneca, , Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales (LCL; volume 1; tr. Gummerie, R. M.; London: William Heinemann/New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1925) 3Google Scholar. 3 writes: ‘… you should share with a friend at least all your worries and reflections [cum amico omnes curas, omnes cogitationes tuas misce]’.

71 For discussion, see Ollrog, W.-H., Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter. Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis der paulinischen Mission (WMANT 50; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979) 77Google Scholar; Gnilka, J., Der Philemonbrief (HTKNT 10/4; Freiburg: Herder, 1982) 15Google Scholar; contra Greeven, H., ‘Prüfung der Thesen von J. Knox zum Philemonbrief’, TLZ 79 (1954)376.Google Scholar

It is worth noting that in the references to Onesimus at Col 4. 9 (cf. Phlm 16) and possibly to Epaenetus at Rom 16. 7 (cf. Acts 18. 19–21), the designations ‘beloved’ and ‘my beloved’ may indicate not only apostolic affection for but also personal apostolic involvement in converting those so described. Philemon, who is beloved of Paul, also owes his very life to the apostle according to Phlm 1 and 19. Cf. Best, E., Paul and His Converts (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1988) 29.Google Scholar

72 See Suhl, A., Der Brief an Philemon (Züricher Bibelkommentare NT 13; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1981) 20Google Scholar; Gnilka, , Philemonbrief, 15Google Scholar. Contra Greeven, , ‘Pr’, 376.Google Scholar

73 Seneca, , De Ira, 3. 40Google Scholar. Cf. Dio, , History, 54. 23. 3.Google Scholar

74 Dio, , History, 54. 23. 3.Google Scholar

75 Seneca, , De Ira, 3. 40. 5Google Scholar. Dio, , History, 54. 23. 4Google Scholar, writes: ‘When Pollio saw this, he was vexed, of course; but since he was no longer angry over the one goblet, considering the great number of the others that were ruined, and, on the other hand, could not punish his servant for what Augustus also had done, he held his peace, though much against his will.’

76 Pliny, , Letters, 9. 24.Google Scholar

77 The patent condescension in the letters is a matter of comment in Syme's, R.article ‘People in Pliny’, JRS 58 (1968) 135–51Google Scholar. He enters the following comments for the name Sabinianus at page 150: ‘One of the suffecti of 112 had “Sabinianus” for additional cognomen (Æ 1964, 70). However, Pliny's language forbids the notion that he is addressing a senator of praetorian rank.’

78 It is possible that Onesimus had personally met Paul; perhaps in Ephesus. For a discussion see Moule, , Epistles of Paul, 19Google Scholar; Duncan, , Ephesian Ministry, 73.Google Scholar

79 Wiles, G. P., Paul's Intercessory Prayers: The Significance of the Intercessory Prayer Passages in the Letters of St. Paul (SNTSMS 24; Cambridge: CUP, 1974) 282. [My italics.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80 Goodenough, , ‘Paul and Onesimus’, 182.Google Scholar