Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-7lvjp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T23:02:19.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

John Chrysostom on Philemon: A Second Look

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Margaret M. Mitchell
Margaret M. Mitchell
Affiliation:
McCormick Theological Seminary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recently in this journal Allen D. Callahan argued for a bold, distinctive interpretation of Paul's Epistle to Philemon. Contrary to the conventional interpretation, Onesimus was not a (runaway) slave, but was Philemon's own estranged blood brother. Rather than an appeal for forgiveness for a fugitivus, or a request to retain a slave for further service, the Epistle to Philemon is the apostle's attempt to bring about reconciliation between two brothers. Callahan's thesis constitutes a powerful reminder of how the interpretation of each of Paul's letters, perhaps especially this shortest and most subtle letter, depends acutely upon the interplay between historical reconstruction of the original context and the text itself. Callahan calls for a reconsideration of the most basic, universal presupposition of the interpretation of the letter—that Onesimus was Philemon's slave.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 88 , Issue 1 , January 1995 , pp. 135 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1995

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 Callahan, Allen Dwight, “Paul's Epistle to Philemon: Toward an Alternative Argumentum,” HTR 86 (1993) 357–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Whether Onesimus was a slave and whether he was a runaway should be considered separately.

3 This was the period of his ordained ministry in Antioch, in which most (although not all) of his homilies on the Pauline letters are thought to have been composed and delivered (Quasten, Johannes, Patrology [3 vols.; Westminster, MD: Newman, 1960] 3. 449–50Google Scholar).

4 Callahan, (“Paul's Epistle to Philemon,” 366) documents this point by refering to Peter Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an Philemon (EKKNT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975) 58Google Scholar. In an excursus entitled, “Auslegungs- und Wirkungsgeschichte” (pp. 58–66), Stuhlmacher argues that both John Chrysostom and his contemporary Theodore of Mopsuestia (whom Callahan does not mention) put a decisive stamp on the history of interpretation of the letter as “antienthusiastic” and “antiemancipationist.” Although his survey of the interpretation of Philemon begins with Chrysostom and Theodore, Stuhlmacher does not explicitly claim that they were the first to propose that Onesimus was Philemon's slave.

5 “Chrysostom was able to derive an exegesis treating an issue of great importance in his own time—slavery” (Callahan, “Paul's Epistle to Philemon,” 366–67). An overall assessment of Chrysostom's views on slavery from his varied comments has been attempted by several authors. Earlier studies claimed Chrysostom as a valuable ally of slaves, while a spate of more recent works argue, with varying degrees of critique, that Chrysostom only mildly challenged certain aspects of slave ownership and treatment. Many argue that he challenged slavery only as part of his practical concerns for simple lifestyle and harmony in the family and church, or within a discussion of the theological conceptualization of slavery to sin. See Möhler, Johann A., “Bruchstücke aus der Geschichte der Aufhebung der Sklaverei,” in Döllinger, Johann J.I., ed., Gesammelte Schriften und Aufsätze (2 vols.; Regensburg: Manz, 1839–40) 2. 54–140Google Scholar, esp. 89–97; Jaeger, Wulf, “Die Sklaverei bei Johannes Chrysostomus” (Theol. diss., Universität zu Kiel, 1974)Google Scholar; Stötzel, Arnold, Kirche als “neue Gesellschaft”: Die humanisierende Wirkung des Christentums nach Johannes Chrysostomus (Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie 51; Münster: Aschendorff, 1984) 45–49Google Scholar, 86–91, 122–42; Kontoulis, Georg, Zum Problem der Sklaverei (ΔΟΓΛΕΙΑ) bei den kappadokischen Kirchenvätern und Johannes Chrysostomus Habelts Dissertationsdrucke 38; Bonn: Habelt, 1993) 315–79Google Scholar. For a debate on some of the issues involved, see the recent exchange of Ritter, Adolf Martin (“John Chrysostom as an Interpreter of Pauline Social Ethics,” in Babcock, William S., ed., Paul and the Legacies of Paul [Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1990] 183–92Google Scholar); and Elizabeth A. Clark (“Comment: Chrysostom and Pauline Social Ethics,” in Babcock, Paul and the Legacies of Paul, 193–99). While I agree with the recent works that argue that Chrysostom does not directly challenge the institution of slavery and thus from a modern perspective his “generally expressed views are conservative” (Clark, “Chrysostom and Pauline Social Ethics,” 195–96), that judgment does not justify the conclusion that Chrysostom's interpretation of Onesimus as Philemon's slave was invented by him to support that conservatism. The logical possibilities for the relationship between the two facts—that Chrysostom was socially conservative in regard to slavery and that he thought Onesimus was Philemon's slave—are by no means exhausted by the simple inference that Chrysostom invented the exegesis to support his social views.

6 Callahan, “Paul's Epistle to Philemon,” 368.

7 “Chrysostom's diction indicates that he was offering the rationale for an opinion” (ibid., 366).

8 Ibid.; my emphasis.

9 Chrysostom Hom. in Phlm., Argumentum (PG 62. 701). The superior critical Greek text of Field, Frederick (Joannis Chrysostomi interpretatio omnium epistularum paulinarum [7 vols.; Oxford: Parker, 1845–62] 6. 325Google Scholar) notes only a few divergent readings in extant manuscripts of the text of this passage, none of which substantially affects the present argument. All translations of Greek and Latin texts in this article are my own.

10 Compare the same approach in the opening lines of Chrysostom's Argumentum on 1 Timothy. In regard to another Pauline letter addressed to an individual, Chrysostom demonstrates at the outset that Timothy was admirable: “Timothy was also one of the disciples of the Apostle (Paul). Luke testifies concerning him that he was an admirable (θαυμαστός) young man, attested to by the brothers and sisters at Lystra and Iconium” (Hom. in 1 Tim., Argumentum 1 [PG62. 501]). See also Hom. in Tit. 1.1, on Titus 1:1–4, where Titus is shown to be δόκιμος, “approved” [PG 62. 663].

11 Some of the early church fathers were perplexed about the “house churches” referred to in the New Testament, as they reflect a different social context from their own day. Chrysostom consistently understands this designation to mean that everyone in a given household was a Christian: “For Paul was not simply accustomed to calling houses churches, unless great piety and much fear of God were deeply rooted in them” (Hom. in Rom. 30.3, on Rom 16:5 [PG 60. 664]). In the continuation of this passage, Chrysostom's considerable interest in the personal implications of having a church in one's house and his regularity in terminology are evident. He quotes 1 Cor 16:19 and Phlm 1–2 as other examples and concludes: “For it is possible for one to be admirable (θαυμαστός) and noble (γενναῖος) even in marriage.”

12 The phrase δοκεῖ μοι is used twice more in the first homily to introduce Chrysostom's speculations about the other two recipients of the letter: that Apphia was Philemon's wife (Ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ σῦμβιον εἶναι τού), and that Archippus also must have been a minister (by appeal to Col 4:17) (Δοκεῖ μοι οὗτος καὶ εἶναι τῶν ἐν κλήρῳ κατειλεγμένων) (Hom. in Phlm. 1.1, on Phlm 2 [PG 62. 704–5]). In Hom. in Phlm. 2.1, on Phlm 5, this phrase introduces Chrysostom's speculation that Philemon, like Archippus (Col 4:16), lived in Phrygia (PG 62. 708). For other instances of this locution to introduce Chrysostom's historical speculations, see, for example, Hom. in Rom. 1.1, Argumentum (PG 60. 393); Hom. in Act. 40.2, on Acts 18:18–22 (PG 60. 283–84).

13 See, for example, the way Chrysostom begins the first homily, on Phlm 1–3: “These things are written on behalf of a household slave to his master” (Γπὲρ οἰκέτου πρὸς δεσπότην ἐστὶ ταῦτα) (Hom. in Phlm. 1.1 [PG 62. 703]; also Hom. in Col. 11.3, on Col 4:9 [PG 62. 377]).

14 This is the opposite of what Callahan contends: “Nothing in his words suggests that Chrysostom was here drawing on an interpretation either current or traditional. Precisely the contrary: in his ὑπόθεσις he was offering a novel interpretation and was thus constrained to argue for its validity” (“Paul's Epistle to Philemon,” 366). What is striking, however, is that no arguments are given for these statements.

15 In the continuation of the passage, Chrysostom does provide documentation for two further elements of the historical scenario—Onesimus's thievery and his later baptism. He cites Phlm 18–19 to document the assertion that Onesimus was a thief: “For the fact that he stole, listen to what he says: ‘Or if he owes, I will repay.’” Next Chrysostom says that Onesimus was baptized in Rome, where he met Paul in prison. He substantiates this by reference to verse 10: “For that it was there he attained the gift of baptism is clear from his saying: ‘the one whom I begot in my chains’” (Hom. in Phlm., Argumentum [PG 62. 701]).

16 “Well he said ‘perhaps’ (τάχα), so that the master might yield. For since the flight (φυγή) had been due to stubbornness and a distorted mind, and not to deliberate choice, he said, ‘perhaps.’ And he did not say, ‘on account of this he fled’ (ἔφυγεν), but, ‘on account of this he was separated’ (ἐχωρίσθη), softening him instead by a better sounding word. And he did not say, ‘he separated himself,’ but ‘he was separated.’ For it was not his contrivance to go away either for this or that reason. Just as Joseph, defending his brothers, said ‘God sent me here’ (Gen 45:5); that is, God used their evil deed for a right purpose. And on account of this he was separated for a while (πρὸς ὥραν). He shortens the time, confesses the offense (τὸἁμάρτημα ὁμολογεῖ), and diverts the whole thing to divine providence” (Hom. in Phlm. 2.2 [PG 62. 711]).

17 “‘If he committed any wrong.’ You see where and when he puts the wrong deed—later, after saying many preliminary things on his [Onesimus's] behalf. For since loss of property customarily vexes people the most, so that he might not accuse him concerning these things (for likely the money was already spent), he puts it then here and says, ‘if he committed any wrong.’ He did not say, ‘if he stole anything.’ But what? ‘If he committed any wrong.’ At the same time he confesses the offense (τὸ ἁμάρτημα ὡμολόγησε), and not as a slave's offense, but of a friend against a friend, using the word ‘wrong deed’ (ἀδικία) instead of ‘theft’ (κλοπή)” (Hom. in Phlm. 3.1 [PG 62. 714]).

18 Callahan inherits from Stuhlmacher (see n. 4 above) the fault of reading Chrysostom's homilies on Philemon in isolation from his full corpus; compare Ritter, “John Chrysostom as Interpreter of Pauline Social Ethics,” 368 n. 41. As discussed below, Chrysostom's Homiliae in epistolam ad Philemonem cannot be the first place in Christian literature where the “traditional” interpretation of Philemon appears, for it is found earlier even within Chrysostom's own corpus of writings.

19 Chrysostom De Lazaro 6; see Baur, Chrysostomus, John Chrysostom and His Time (2 vols.; Westminster, MD: Newman, 1959) 1. 219Google Scholar.

20 For this common rationale in Chrysostom's writings and other church fathers, see Möhler, Gesammelte Schriften, 2. 91; Kontoulis, Sklaverei, 329–32.

21 This is a common theme for Chrysostom. See also Hom. in Gen. 29.6, on Gen 9:25 (PG 53. 270); Hom. in 1 Cor. 40.5, on 1 Cor 15:33–34 (PG 61. 353–54); further references and discussion in Möhler, Gesammelte Schriften, 2. 89–90; Stötzel, Kirche als “neue Gesellschaft,” 124–26; Clark, “Chrysostom and Pauline Social Ethics,” 197–98; Kontoulis, Sklaverei, 355–60.

22 Chrysostom De Lazaro 6.7–8 (PG 48. 1038–39).

23 Piédagnel, Auguste, Jean Chrysostome, Panégyriques de S. Paul (SC 300; Paris: Cerf, 1982) 10–20Google Scholar.

24 Chrysostom Laud. Paul. 3.8 (SC 300. 176). Chrysostom makes the same point in the Argumentum to Philemon: “For if Paul exercised such forethought on behalf of a runaway (δραπέτης), a robber (ληστής), and a thief (κλέπτης)… how much more is it unfitting for us to be thoughtless concerning such things” (Hom. in Phlm, Argumentum [PG 62. 703]).

25 Affairs of this world (Chrysostom Laud. Paul. 3.7 [SC 300. 174 lines 1–2]).

26 Idem, Hom. in Act. 9:1 4.3 (PG 51. 149).

27 “And if you are a slave (δοῦλος), even a runaway slave (δραπέτης), you can fulfill your role, since Onesimus too was such as this” (idem, Hom. in Act. 20.4, on Acts 9:23–25 [PG 60. 162]). “Paul calls the slave a brother” (Hom. in Col. 11.3, on Col 4:9 [PG 62. 377]). “And another is a runaway slave (δραπέτης), like Onesimus” (Hom. in Matt. 43.5 [PG 57. 464]).

28 Idem, Hom. in Phil. 1:18 4–5 (PG 51. 314–15). Chrysostom makes the same argument about Paul's care for individuals in reference to Prisca and Aquila in Hom. in Rom. 16:3 1.2 (PG51. 189).

29 Baur (John Chrysostom and His Time, 1. 115–23) and Quasten (Patrology, 3. 463) date the two works to Chrysostom's monastic period, perhaps between 378 and 385. Jean Dumortier (Jean Chrysostome. A Théodore [SC 117; Paris: Cerf, 1966] 10–11 n. 2) assigns different dates to the two works: he dates the first (the treatise) to 380–386, during the period of Chrysostom's diaconate, and the second (the letter) to 367–368. All scholars consider the two works to predate 386, when Chrysostom was ordained a priest. This text is therefore the earliest writing in Chrysostom's corpus that addresses the Epistle to Philemon.

30 Dumortier (A Théodore [SC 117. 203]) translates “cet esclave fugitif.” The term δραπέτης, literally “runaway,” alone without δοῦλος means “runaway slave,” as the standard lexica show (see LSJ and LPGL, s.v. δραπέτης).

31 Chrysostom Thdr. 1 20 (SC 117. 202–4).

32 See n. 4 above and further discussion below in n. 42.

33 Their common source may well have been their teacher, Diodore of Tarsus (died ca. 390), whose commentaries on the Pauline epistles are extant only in a few fragments (none on Philemon). From where Diodore might have learned such an exegesis remains an open question.

34 Chrysostom Thdr. 1 (before 386) and Hom. in Act. (ca. 400; during Chrysostom's years in Constantinople [Quasten, Patrology, 3. 440]), represent the temporal extremes of Chrysostom's writing career.

35 Callahan, “Paul's Epistle to Philemon,” 368.

36 As Callahan himself realizes, in regard to testimony for the traditional interpretation (ibid., 365).

37 The text from Athanasius (Contra Arianos 2.3 [PG 26. 152–53]), dated approximately 356–360, is consigned to a footnote by Callahan (“Paul's Epistle to Philemon,” 368 n. 51), but it constitutes more than a “minor qualification” of his thesis. Athanasius writes about two forms of language transference: parents calling children slaves, and masters calling their slaves children. The text does not have as its point “that none of the above mentioned biblical notables [Sarah, Onesimus, Bathsheba] were literally slaves,” as Callahan claims (ibid.). Onesimus's status as a slave is a presupposition of this text; he is referred to as a δοῦλος (not an οἰ κέτης, as Callahan says, although the difference is insignificant for this point), and he is the example of blood relation terms applied to slaves: “Therefore fathers often call the sons they beget their own slaves; and they do not deny the legitimacy of their nature. And often when kindly greeting their own slaves, they call them children; and they do not hide their ownership of them from the beginning. For they say the one (τὸ μέν) from their authority as fathers, and they use the other name (τὸ δέ) out of human kindness.” The examples follow, with the μὲν/δέ contrast: “Now Sarah called Abraham ‘master’ (κύριος), although she wasn't a slave (δούλη), but a wife (σύζυγος). And the Apostle (μὲν) joined Onesimus the slave (δοῦλος) to Philemon his owner (ὁ κτησάμενος) as a brother (ἀδελφός). But Bathsheba (δὲ), although a mother (μήτηρ), called her son (υἱός) a slave (δοῦλος).” This text clearly shows that Athanasius assumed that Onesimus was Philemon's slave.

38 Basil (Asceticon magnum 11 [PG 31. 948]) says, “As for those slaves who are under the yoke and flee to religious communities (Ὅςοι δὲ ὑπὸ ζυγὸν ὄντες δοῦγοι, ταῖς ἀδελφότησιπροσφεύγουσι), it is necessary to admonish and improve them and send them back to their masters, in the same way as the blessed Paul, who, after begetting Onesimus through the gospel, sent him back to Philemon. He had convinced him [Onesimus] that the yoke of slavery (ὁ ζυγὸς τῆς δουγείας), lived out successfully in a manner pleasing to the Lord, recommends him as worthy of the kingdom of heaven.” The tradition history of these monastic rules is very complex, but the first twenty-three of the questions in Basil's long rule are thought to go back to the small rule which dates to about 358–359 (Jean Gribomont, Histoire du texte des ascétiques de s. Basile [Bibliotheque du Muséon 32; Louvain: University of Louvain Press, 1953] 251–52; Quasten, Patrology, 3. 212–13). Because question 11 is not paralleled in the extant manuscripts of the shorter rule (Gribomont, Histoire, 247), however, an indisputable dating of this text and the tradition that lies behind it is not possible.

39 Philemoni familiares litteras facit pro Onesimo servo eius (“He composed a friendly letter to Philemon on behalf of his slave Onesimus”). I cite the text from De Bruyne, Donatien (“Prologues bibliques d'origine marcionite,” RBén 24 [1907] 15Google Scholar) who was the first to argue for the Marcionite origin of the prologues. The origin and consequent dating of these prologues continue to be debated, with much reservation about the earlier hypothesis. Although many scholars consider the prologue to Philemon to be among the second set of prologues added to the original set composed for the seven-letter corpus, even that later edition is usually dated to the midthird century, thus predating Chrysostom's writings by several decades (Nils A. Dahl, “The Origin of the Earliest Prologues to the Pauline Letters,” Semeia 12 [1978] 233–77, 252; Metzger, Bruce M., The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance [Oxford: Clarendon, 1987] 95)Google Scholar.

40 The Argumentum to Ambrosiaster's Commentarius in epistulam ad Philemonem exhibits a knowledge of the “Marcionite” prologue to the letter and a dependence upon it: cui causa Onesimi servi eius familiares litteras facit (“to whom he [Philemon] wrote a friendly letter on behalf of his slave Onesimus”). The text is found in Vogels, Heinrich Joseph, ed., Ambrosiastri qui dicitur commentarius in epistulas Paulinas [CSEL 81.3; Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsley, 1969] 337Google Scholar). Internal evidence suggests a date between 366 and 384 for these commentaries on the Pauline epistles, during the papacy of Damasus (Souter, Alexander, The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul [Oxford: Clarendon, 1927] 42–43Google Scholar; see also p. 63 on the dependence of these commentaries on the “Marcionite” prologues). This work thus predates Chrysostom's homilies on Philemon and confirms an earlier date for the prologue to Philemon.

41 Onesimus is identified as a slave in the list of bishoprics in Const. App. 7.46.13 ([ἐπίσκοπος] Βεροίας δὲ τῆς κατὰ Μακεδονίαν Ὀνήσιμος ὁ Φιλήμονος [“and Onesimus, the slave of Philemon, was bishop of Beroea in Macedonia”]), and in 8.47.82, where he is cited as the example of a slave found worthy of ordination (εἰ δέ ποτε καὶ ἄξιος φανείη οἰκέτης πρὸς χειροτονίαν βαθμοῦ, οἷος Ὀνήσιμος ὁ ἡμέτερος ἀνεφάνη [“but if ever a household slave might appear worthy of ordination to one of the higher orders, such as our Onesimus plainly appeared to be”]). The text is cited from Funk, Franciscus X., ed., Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum (2 vols.; Paderborn: Schöningh, 1905) 1. 454Google Scholar, 588–90. Books 7 and 8 of this writing were later additions to books 1–6, which are based on the tḥird-century Didascalia apostolorum, but the composite work (of Syrian origin) is usually dated ca. 380 (Jefford, Clayton N., “Apostolic Constitutions and Canons,” in Freedman, David N., ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary [7 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992] 1. 312–13)Google Scholar.

42 See Theodore's Argumentum to Philemon: Onesimus, seruus Philemonis cuiusdam fidelis et religiosi uiri, malum habens propositum per fugam a suo discessit domino (“Onesimus, a slave of Philemon, who was a faithful and religious man, with evil intent by flight departed from his master”). I cite the text of Swete, Henry B., Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in epistolas b. Pauli commentarii (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1880–82) 2. 258Google Scholar. Theodore holds these assumptions throughout his commentary on the letter (2. 258–86).

43 Gregory of Nyssa Apoll. 1233M (Mueller, Frederick, ed., Gregorii Nysseni opera dogmatica minora [3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1958] 3. 1.208)Google Scholar. In this passage Gregory compares slavery to death, using as examples Canaan, the slave of Abraham (Gen 24:2), Elisha's slave Gehazi, and Onesimus. This work is dated soon after 385 (Quasten, Patrology, 3. 258).

44 Jerome Commentarii in epistulam ad Philemonem 755A [PL 26. 648]: qui e servo fugitivo atque raptore, minister Apostoli factus erat (“who, from a runaway slave and moreover a thief, had been made a servant of the apostle”). This work can be dated to 387–389 (Altaner, Berthold and Stuiber, Alfred, Patrologie: Leben und Schriften und Lehre der Kirchenväter [8th ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1978] 400Google Scholar). The master and slave identities of Philemon and Onesimus, and the theft and flight scenario are the governing assumptions of Jerome's commentary on Philemon. Souter (Earliest Latin Commentaries, 108) argued that Origen was “the principal source” for Jerome's Philemon commentary, as can be clearly documented on literary-critical grounds in the cases of Galatians and Ephesians, where larger portions of Origen's commentaries are extant. Souter was confident that “a similar indebtedness to Origen on Jerome's part can be proved for the Philemon commentary also” (p. 115). If true, this conclusion would show that these interpretive assumptions were held already in the first half of the third century.

45 This stands as an inherent contradiction in Callahan's argument (see “Paul's Epistle to Philemon,” 368).

46 This depends upon one's assessment of two hypotheses: the origin and provenance of the “Marcionite” prologues and Jerome's use of Origen (see nn. 39 and 44 above).

47 Although I cannot engage in a full discussion of this second line of evaluation in this article, I would like to mention several places where Callahan's constructive argument seems to me to be vulnerable. First, it is not at all certain, either lexically or in regard to general Pauline usage, that ὡς in Phlm 16 “indicates a virtual, not an actual, state of affairs” (Callahan, “Paul's Epistle to Philemon,” 362; but see BAGD, 898 s.v. ὡς III). Second, that Phlm 18 begins with εἰ does not justify the conclusion that the premise is not a reality (ibid., 374; Callahan takes up this argument from Martin, Clarice, “The Rhetorical Function of Commercial Language in Paul's Letter to Philemon [Verse 18],” in Watson, Duane F., ed., Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy [JSNTSup 50; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991] 321–37Google Scholar, 332–33); the sentence is a real condition, and at least signals that Paul recognizes that the protasis is not outside the realm of possibility. Third, Callahan's assignment of elements of the “apostolic parousia” form (pp. 373–74) suffers from a lack of attention to the immediate context of the parts excised to fit that form (for example, the purpose of the dispatch clause identified in Phlm 15 [p. 373] in its context tells the purpose of Onesimus's past separation from Philemon, not the purpose of Onesimus being sent back). Fourth, the fact that Onesimus was Paul's apostolic envoy (p. 373) does not mean that he was not a slave (see Col 4:9). Fifth, if the Epistle to Philemon were a “letter of reconciliation,” then why do we find only the universal Pauline love-topos (p. 372) and none of the many other commonplace arguments for reconciliation used in Greco-Roman and Pauline texts which urge unity, such as 1 Corinthians and Philippians? For a catalogue and discussion of reconciliation language and topoi, see Mitchell, Margaret M., Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians [Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 28; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1991Google Scholar and Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993] 65–183). Sixth, several elements of the letter, such as ἄχρηστος, “useless,” in verse 11, and οὐκέτι, “no longer,” in verse 16 need to be accounted for in terms of the new scenario. Seventh, Callahan's thesis that Paul maintained a strict “antithesis of slavery and fraternity” (p. 371) does not take into account Paul's positive reappropriations of slave language for the new relationship of those in Christ, reappropriations that stand comfortably alongside the inner-church language of “brothers and sisters” (for example, in Rom 6:16–23; 1 Cor 7:17–24; 9:19). These are some points on which to continue the next segment of this interesting debate.