Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T01:18:45.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rhetorical Structure and Design in Paul's Letter to Philemon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

F. Forrester Church
F. Forrester Church
Affiliation:
Unitarian Church of All Souls, New York, NY 10021
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What has Paul to do with Quintilian? For a host of scholars this question would answer itself, rhetorically. A stock device, the rhetorical question has long been favored in argument. Even Paul is no exception. “Where is the wise man?” he asks. “Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Cor 1:20). Paul would appear to be dismissing everything his contemporary, Quintilian, stood for. Yet one point remains. As Cicero once wrote of Plato, “it was when making fun of orators that he himself seemed to be the consummate orator.” The following, a rhetorical study of the letter to Philemon, will suggest that Paul too employed basic tactics of persuasion taught and widely practiced in his day.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 71 , Issue 1-2 , April 1978 , pp. 17 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1978

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 Among others, see Overbeck, Franz, “Über die Anfänge der patristischen Literatur,” Hislorische Zeitschrift 48 (1882) 443Google Scholar; and Wilder, Amos, Early Christian Rhetoric (New York: Harper & Row, 1964) 15Google Scholar.

2 De oratore 1.11.47, trans. Rackham, H. (LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University, 1942Google Scholar).

3 “The Structural Analysis of Philemon: a Point of Departure in the Formal Analysis of the Pauline Letter” (SBLASP; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1971) 1–47, citing Funk on pp. I and 26. For other illustrations of this same approach, see Funk, Robert W., Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God (New York: Harper & Row, 1966Google Scholar). Rigaux, Beda, Letters of St. Paul: Modern Studies (Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1968Google Scholar); Kim, Chan-Hie, Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation (SBLDS 4; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972Google Scholar); White, John, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter (SBLDS 2; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972Google Scholar); and, for a recent survey, Doty, William G., Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973Google Scholar).

4 Weiss, “Beiträge zur paulinischen Rhetorik,” Theologische Studien: Bernhard Weiss Festschrift (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897) 165–247; Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910). See also Blass, Friedrich, Die Rhylhmen der asianischen und römischen Kunstprosa (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1905Google Scholar); Rose, H. J., “The Clausulae of the Pauline Corpus,” JTS 25 (1923) 17–43Google Scholar; and, following Blass, Couchoud, P.-L., “Le style rhythmé dans l'éoître de Saint Paul à Philémon,” RHR 96 (1927) 129–46Google Scholar.

5 White, Body of the Greek Letter, 75.

6 Lightfoot, J. B., St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (8th ed.; London: Macmillan, 1886) 317Google Scholar. See also Knox, John, Philemon Among the Letters of Paul (New York/Nashville: Abingdon, 1959) 7Google Scholar; Wiles, Gordon P., Paul's Intercessory Prayers (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1974) 216Google Scholar; and, for a minority view, P. C. Sands, Literary Genius of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1932) 128. Among thos e who acknowledge Paul's artistry in Philemon are Ernest Renan (L'Antéchrist [Paris: Michel Lévy Frères, 1873] 96, cited by Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon, 316), who finds it “a true little chef d'oeuvre of the art of letter-writing.” He is echoed by Maurice Goguel (Introduction au N. T. [4 vols.; Paris: Leroux, 1923–26] 4.423, cited by Théo Preiss, Life in Christ [STB; London: SCM, 1954] 32), who terms Philemon, “with respect to style, perhaps the best of Paul's epistles, a true chef d'oeuvre of tac t and heart.”

7 See Aristotle, Art of Rhetoric 1.3.3–4.

8 To expand upon a stock example, the question “Should a person marry?” might provide a topic suitable to epideictic oratory; “Should Cato marry?” is a deliberative question; “Did Cato Marry?” could prove crucial to a forensic defense of Cato wherever bigamy is considered a crime punishable by law.

9 Quint. 3.8.15, trans., H. E. Butler (LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University, 1922). For deliberative rhetoric in general, see Cicero, De invenlione 2. 157–78; De oratore 2.342–49; and also Cicero, Rhetorica ad Herennium 3.2 15. Friedrich Solmsen (“Aristotelian Tradition in Ancient Rhetoric,” Rhetorika, ed. Rudolf Stark [Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1968] 335) observes that deliberative rhetoric, like epideictic, is, on the whole, “less affected by the innovations of Post-Aristotelian theorists,” than is forensic rhetoric.

10 Quint. 3.8.15. See also Aristotle Rhet. 1.3.4–6.

11 For a different view, see Hans Dieter Betz's ground-breaking article, “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians,” NTS 21 (1975) 353–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where Galatians is interpreted as an “apologetic letter,” composed along the structural lines of ancient forensic rhetoric.

12 The emphasis placed on each as a primary motive varies. See Aristotle Rhel. 1.3.4–6; Cicero De inv. 2.52–4; De or. 2.82.334; Rhet. ad Her. 3.2.3; and Quint. 3.8.1.

13 Solmsen, “Aristotelian Tradition,” 337. See also his “Aristotle and Cicero on the Orator's Playing upon the Feelings,” Classical Philology 33 (1938) 390–404. Of these three motives Aristotle writes: “The first depends upon the moral character of the speaker, the second upon putting the hearer into a certain frame of mind, the third upon the speech itself, in so far as it proves or seems to prove.” (Rhet. 1.2.3, trans. John Freese [LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University, 1926]).

14 Quint. 3.8.12.

15 Quim. 6.2.9–12.

16 Quint. 6.2.11 14, where he writes: “The ethos which I have in my mind and which I desiderate in an orator is commended to our approval by goodness more than anything else and is not merely calm and mild, but in most cases ingratiating and courteous and such as to excite pleasure and affection in our hearers, while the chief merit in its expression lies in making it seem that all we say derives directly from the nature of the facts and persons concerned and in the revelation of the character of the orator in such a way that all may recognise it. This kind of ethos should be especially displayed in cases where the persons concerned are intimately connected, whenever we tolerate or pardon any act or offer satisfaction of admonition, in all of which cases there should be no trace of anger or hatred.”

17 Aristotle Rhet. 2.4–7.

18 Similar to forensic oratory, with the exception of the narration, which, in most cases, is dropped, “because no one can narrate things to come; but if there is a narrative, it will be of things past, in order that, being reminded of them, the hearers may take better counsel about the future” (Aristotle Rhet. 3.16.11). See also George Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton: Princeton University, 1963) 11–13.

19 Quint. 4.1.23. Cicero writes that “an exordium is a passage which brings the mind of the auditor into a proper condition to receive The rest of the speech. This will be accomplished if he becomes well-disposed, attentive, and receptive” (De inv. 1.15.20). See also Quint. 3.8.6–10; and De inv. 1.16.22. Both draw from Aristotle, Rhet. 3.14–19.

20 Aristotle Rhet. 3.19.

21 Quint. 4.1.28; cf. Aristotle Rhetoric to Alexander 36.

22 Among recent commentaries on Philemon see esp. Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon (ed. Helmut Koester; Hermeneia; Philadelphia; Fortress, 1971); and G. Bouwman, De Brieven van Paulus aan de Kolossenzen en aan Filemon (Amsterdam: Roermond, 1972); C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon (Cambridge Greek New Testament Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1958).

23 The traditional division is thanksgiving (vv 4–7); body (vv 8–20); closing (vv 21–25): see, e.g.. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 187; and Bouwman, Kolossenzen en Filemon, 158 (ignore typographical error in his initial statement of divisions 8–21. 22–25 [p. 158]). Alternatively, Kim (Letter of Recommendation, 124) treats of Philemon as a Greek letter of recommendation, with the body of the request contained in vv 8–17. However, he admits that compared to the papyrus letters of recommendation “Philemon generally does not show the same form and structure.” Kim concludes that “It may be possible to identify vv 8–16 as the background and v 17 as the request period, in accordance with the general structure of the body of the papyrus letter; but such a division is secondary and arbitrary, for the body of Philemon exhibits the Pauline commendation formula as found also in all six of the other Pauline passages of recommendation” (125–26). My division follows most closely that of White, with the only exception v 7 which he assigns to the introductory body (“Philemon,” 34); elsewhere, however, he considers it, as I do, a part of the thanksgiving, or a transitional verse leading into the body-opening (Body of the Greek Letter, 76).

24 As Robin Scroggs (“Paul as Rhetorician: Two Homilies in Romans 1–11,” in Jews, Greeks and Christians: Essays in Honor of William David Davies, ed. by Robert Hamerton-Kelly and Scroggs [Leiden: Brill, 1976] 272) notes, “Paul can speak out of Hellenistic rhetorical practice as easily as he can support a point with the most subtle rabbinic hermeneutic.”

25 As my space is limited, the following exegesis will be limited in scope as well, focusing upon the practicability of rhetorical form criticism as a supplementary aid to the interpretation of Paul's letters. So sharp a focus, if restrictive, is required by the relative novelty of this approach. I hope shortly to bring out a second piece on Philemon that will cover these bones with a bit of theological muscle and sociological flesh.

26 Cicero De inv. 1.15.20; cf. Rhet. ad Her. 1.3–6.

27 Quint. 4.1.41; cf. Cicero De inv. 1.16.21.

28 Quint. 4.1.5; as Quintilian notes elsewhere (3.8.59), “Do not begin to shriek, but endeavor as far as possible to win the assent of the man who is considering the question by a courteous and natural opening.”

29 The absence of the word “hope” corresponds to a lack of explicit eschatological reference anywhere in Philemon. On this, and the thanksgiving/prayer-report in general, see Wiles, Paul's Intercessory Prayers, 215–25. For the chiastic structure, see Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 193; Moule, Colossians and Philemon, 141. As Wiles remarks, “This sentence, written in a highly condensed style, literally directs both Philemon's love and his faith, both to Jesus and to all the saints. So uncharacteristic of Paul would this be, that it is best interpreted in a chiastic manner: your faith towards the Lord Jesus, and your love toward all the saints.” For a chiastic structural interpretation of the entire letter, see Nils Wilhelm Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1942) 219–20, with a critique by Joachim Jeremias, “Chiasmus in den Paulusbriefen,” Abba (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 154–55.

30 Paul's Intercessory Prayers, 218. According to Quintilian (4.1.17), “in pleadingfora man of good birth we shall appeal to his own high rank, in speaking for the lowly we shall lay stress on his sense of justice.” In commending the person of a beloved brother, himself one of the saints, to the attention of a man whom he has wronged, Paul could do much worse than to praise that man for the love he has shown to all the saints.

31 For this difficult verse, see Moule (Colossians and Philemon, 142–43), who presents the various options and their respective advocates. For κoινωνία (participation, impartation, fellowship), see Friedrich Hauck, TDNT 3 (1965) 797–809; J. Y. Campbell, “KOINONIA and its cognates in the N.T.,” in Three New Testament Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1965) 1–28; Heinrich Seesemann, “Der Begriff KOINONIA im Neuen Testament,” BZNW 14 (1933) 79–83. I have chosen “impartation” to draw attention to the stem's recurrence in v 17, where Paul writes, “if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would me.”

32 Horn, in Phlm. 2.1.7. Bouwman (Kolossenzen en Filemon, 163) aptly describes this as captatio benevolentiae.

33 Philemon, 22. This image, adapted to the requirements of ancient music, is inverted by Cicero, but the point remains: “the opening passage should be so closely connected with the speech that follows as to appear to be not an appendage, like the prelude to a piece of music, but an integral part of the whole structure” (De or. 2.80.325).

34 De or. 2.79.324.

35 Martin Dibelius (An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon [HNT 12; 3rd ed. by Heinrich Greeven; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1953] 104) perceives in this usage “orientalisierend-pathetischen Stil.” For a complete discussion, see Helmut Köster, “σπλάνχνoν” TDNT 7 (1971) 548–59. A “very strong and forceful term which occurs only when Paul is speaking directly and personally, … the word is again used [in Philemon] for the whole person which in the depths of its emotional life has experienced refreshment through consolation and love,” Köster writes. “It is as if Paul, in the runaway slave, came to Philemon in person with his claim to experience love” (555).

36 De or. 2.78.318.

37 “Philemon,” 36; idem, Body of the Greek Letter, 78. Kim (Letter of Recommendation, 125) identifies vv 8–16 as the “background,” and v 17 as the request period proper, but White (“Philemon,” 36) has shown that all the elements of a request period are present in vv 8–14. I extend that period two verses, but agree that v 17 constitutes a reiteration of Paul's request, and not its original statement.

38 “Philemon,” 35–36.

39 “Philemon,” 36; idem, Body of the Greek Letter, 79 n. 17. As Betz has observed (“Literary Composition of Galatians,” 354), “Scholars of the later twentieth century seem in basic agreement that Paul's letters are ‘confused’, disagreeing only about whether the confusion is caused by emotional disturbances, ‘Diktierpausen’ or ‘rabbinic’ methodology.”

40 Body of the Greek Letter, 79 n. 17.

41 “Der Philemonbrief-Privatbrief Oder apostolisches Schreiben?” ZNW 52 (1961) 235. Following Wickert's reading, it would seem clear that “ambassador” and “prisoner” are titles, replacing that of apostle (cf. v 1). On this see Moule, Colossians and Philemon, 140; and White, “Philemon,” 29. For the reading “old man” for πρεσβύτης see Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 199.

42 Quint. 9.2.47.

43 Verrine Orations 5.2.4, cited by Quint. 9.2.47.

44 Horn, in Phlm. 2.2.9.

45 Cicero Rhet. ad Her. 4.28.38; cf. Quint., 9.3.28–9.

46 See Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 200; on the name Onesimus as common to slaves, see Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon, 308–9.

47 Such reluctance is epitomized in BDF 488.1.b: “Paul is not playing upon the name of the slave Onesimus, although he uses ὀναίμην only here (Phm 20); at most the recipient could make the obvious word-play himself from ἄχρηστoν … εῠχρηστoν.” But see Bouwman, Kolossenzen en Filemon, 166–67; and Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 200 n. 35. In addition Paul employs here a type of paronomasi a (when the same word stem recurs in close proximity) in the juxtaposition of ἄχρηστoν and εῠχρηστoν and homoeoptoton (when, in the same period, two or more words appear in the same case and with like terminations) in the sequence 'Oνήσιμoν … ἄχρηστoν … εῠχρηστoν (See BDF 488.1; and Cicero Rhet. ad Her. 4.20.28).

48 Cicero De inv. 2.58.176.

49 De inv. 1.17.24; cf. Quint. 6.1.24–5: “Sometimes the advocate himself may even assume the role of close intimacy with his client, as Cicero does in the pro Milone, … [where he] himself assumed the role of suppliant.”

50 See Quint. 2.6.18.

51 “Philemon,” 37.

52 Philemon also fails to fit the formula since it lacks both an eschatological climax to the thanksgiving and any hint of paraenesis. Attempts to pinpoint the former in v 6 and the latter in v 21 (Doty, Letters, 43, etc.) are closely related to the illusive search for the “body middle.” As Scroggs (“Paul as Rhetorician,” 273) writes, “the structure of the body of Paul's letters is not as a whole much clarified by the letter model.”

53 Colossians and Philemon, 340.

54 Strictly speaking, this is not hyperbole, but simply a form of amplification that consists in passing beyond the highest degree (supra summum adiectio). For other examples see Quint. 8.4.5–6.

55 Quint. 6.1.52.

56 “Philemon,” 38.

57 Rhet. ad Alex. 36 (trans. H. Rackham[LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University, 1937]).

58 Cicero Rhet. ad Her. 4.27.37. See S. Bartina, “‘Me debes más’ (Flm 19). La deuda de Filemón a Pablo,” Studiorum Paul. Congressus Inter. Cath. 2 (1963) 143–44; Bouwman, Kolossenzen en Filemon, 170. Of course, as Adolf Deissmann has demonstrated, there is another formal convention reflected here as well; in Light from the Ancient East ([New York: George Doran, 1927] 84; 331–32), he identifies vv 18–19 as a “memorandum of debt,” or χειρóγραϕoν “A stereotyped formula in these documents is the promise to pay back the borrowed money, “I will repay’; and they are in the debtor's own hand. … It now becomes clear that S. Paul, … is in the letter to Philemon (18f.) humorously writing him a sort of acknowledgment of debt (332–33).” The juxtaposition of this handwritten I O U, with its obvious legal ramifications, and the stated “passing over” of any mention of Philemon's much greater debt to Paul, is rife with rhetorical finesse. To punctuate the sentence differently (ἐμoὶ ἐλλóγα … ἵνα μὴ λέγω σoι ὄτι), as advocated in BDF 495.1 and elsewhere (see Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 204 n. 75, for a discussion), not only glosses over the otherwise obvious praeteritio, but misses the legal formula behind Paul's construction as well.

59 Typical is the interpretation of Preiss (Life in Christ, 35): “Whoever keeps with him a runaway slave makes himself an accomplice of a serious infringement of private law. He owes the owner the value of each day's work lost. This is what Paul solemnly undertakes to make good.” Cf. Richardson, William J., “Principle and Context in the Ethics of the Epistle to Philemon,” Interpretation 22 (1968) 308Google Scholar.

60 Rhet. ad Alex. 36.

61 Quint. 11.1.75.

62 As suggested by John Knox (Philemon, 1–33). For a discussion see White, “Philemon,” 36–37; P. N. Harrison, “Onesimus and Philemon,” A T R 32 (1950) 268–94; Greeven, Heinrich, “Prüfung der Thesen von J. Knox zum Philemonbrief,” ThLZ 79 (1954) 373–78Google Scholar.

63 Funk refers to this recurring component in the closing of Paul's letters as the “apostolic parousia” (“The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance,” in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, ed. Farmer, W. R., Moule, C. F. D., Niebuhr, R. R. [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967] 249–68Google Scholar). In its full form (see White, “Philemon,” 38–45), the “apostolic parousia” comprises the close of Paul's peroration, effectively reinforcing Paul's argument.

64 Epist. 9.21.

65 Trans. Betty Radice (LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University, 1969).

66 Quint. 7.4.18–19; cf. Cicero Rhet. ad Her. 2.17.25–6.

67 Epist. 9.24.

68 One overwrought explanation (Richardson, “Ethics of Philemon,” 310) is that “we can hardly make too much of the fact tha t accompanying this letter was one which said: ‘As the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive’ (Col 3:13).”

69 See Wickert, “Der Philemonbrief,” for a demonstration of this point.

70 As Knox (Philemon, 20) does, in par t drawing upon a comparison of these same two epistles: “Pliny says exactly what we should expect such a note to say. Paul, on the other hand, does not say some things we should certainly expect and says others which seem scarcely relevant. … Paul says not one word about any repentance on the part of the slave and there is no explicit appeal for forgiveness or pity on the part of the master. In other words, the terms we should expect such a letter to contain in abundance are simply not there at all. This fact alone should lead us to suspect a rathe r deeper purpose in the letter than the obvious one generally assigned.”

71 “Paul as Rhetorician,” 273. As Robert Funk has noted (Language, 242), citing Amos Wilder (Early Christian Rhetoric, 29), “the letter form as such … ‘is almost as flexible as oral speech itself,’; and the style of Paul betrays on every page the marks of oral expression.” Cf. Sands (Literary Genius of the New Testament, 133): “Oratory is only pleading, and in his letters Paul sees his correspondents present before him, and pleads with them.”