(16 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...This past week I received a question from a reader about the book of Philemon. The last time that happened … well, actually, I think it has happened only once before in the history of the blog! And now that vibrant and widespread interest has been raised, it is a good time to address it again! Seriously, it involves an unusually intriguing question. What was Paul’s view of slavery?
Philemon provides an unexpected answer, at least as I read it. This is the shortest of Paul’s letters (it’s a one-pager) where he is writing to his convert Philemon, a rich slave owner, asking him to receive back into his good graces his run-away slave Onesimus.
So what was *that* all about? Here is the question and my response.
QUESTION:
From your writing about Greco Roman notions of dominance as status, it seems that the simple manumission of a slave was not a de facto improvement in status, because a man with no wealth, power, or influence was about as low on the ladder as one can be, save for a similarly situated woman. A trusted slave of a wealthy, powerful individual would have more status than a “free” Onesimus.
Would it be unreasonable to suggest that Paul was hoping for an improved station in life for Onesimus as the favored slave of Philemon, who was probably not enormously wealthy and powerful by Roman standards, but pretty high up in the Colossian Christian community? He may have really hit the jackpot and become Philemon’s adopted son, which would be far better than a simple manumitted slave.
This also puts a different spin on the implications of Paul’s self-identity as a slave of Jesus Christ. “Your master is a centurion or a senator? My master is the King of the Universe and sits at the right hand of God Almighty!” Am I reading it right?
RESPONSE
The question assumes the very common view that what Paul is doing is asking Philemon to receive Onesimus back and set him free from slavery (“manumit” him). Most people read the book of Philemon that way. And I don’t think it’s at all right. In my view there is not a hint in the letter that Paul wants Philemon to set Onesimus free. Then what is he writing about? Here is how I explain the entire letter in my book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction
******************************
The letter to Philemon is a little gem hidden away in the inner recesses of the New Testament. Merely a single page in length, the size of an average Greco-Roman letter, it is the only undisputed epistle of Paul addressed to an individual. Rather than dealing with major crises that have arisen in the church, the letter concerns a single man, the runaway slave Onesimus, and his fate at the hands of his master, Philemon.
On first reading, there may be some confusion concerning
A short letter with a completely unexpected twist that almost everyone misses. Want to learn more? Join the blog! Click here for membership options
January 14, 2013 Textual Problems with the King James: The Trinity
How does 1 John 5:7-8 the Johannine Comma. go from
“there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. And these three are one.” NKJV
to
“There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.”
Harper Collins Study Bible
How does the second translation give evidence to the Trinity?
It doesn’t. The King James Version is based on a manuscript that has the extra words in it. (It also has the wording in the second one you give; it adds the first set of words)
Thanks for this post on slavery in the ancient world. This raises a related but tangential issue in my mind. In America today, many people associate slavery as practised in America with racism. In the Greco-Roman world, my understanding is that there was no association between slavery and race. Now, how did people in Antiquity think about race? Some scholars argued that race as commonly understood today is a modern notion. I am sceptical. The Romans would have come into contact with people from sub-Saharan Africa, probably captured some as slaves. The difference in skin colour and facial features would be readily noticed. How did the Romans view Black people – did they think of them as inherently sub-human, inferior humans in virtue of their appearance?
They certainly knew of different races, but they didn’t have the kinds of modern race theories that developed in teh 19th century to explain the essential characteristics of each race (leading, e.g., to the view that Semites were inherently inferior, or views of those of African descent, etc.)
Was Philemon’s slave called “Onesimus” from birth? If so, it was a coincidence that the name refers to the exact quality (usefulness) that Paul wants to emphasize. Alternatively, did Paul, as the slave’s new “father”, give him the name “Onesimus” to rebrand him as useful?
I wish we knew….
I always just assumed that he thought of the ‘useful’ pun because that happened to be Onesimus’s name, rather than that he actually cared specifically about Onesimus’s usefulness above any other quality. I mean, it’s not a mad coincidence that a slave was given a name for a quality that people would have wanted their slaves to have.
Re: BBC#3
I would like to watch the book club, but will be flying back from Texas on that day. Can I donate and get access to a video of the discussion?
Good question. I’ll look into it.
First, I’ll concede that I’m very possibly misunderstanding the issue (or simply missing an obvious point) but I’m afraid I don’t understand why the answer should be assumed to be either “surprising” or “unexpected”.
That is, if I’m reading this correctly, the suggestion is that the reader might (or should) find it strange that Paul may not have been strictly opposed to slavery.
It goes without saying, of course, that everyone reading this blog shares (to borrow your phrase) our “modern abhorrence of slavery”.
But, aside from a presentist assumption that (of course) any moral or right-thinking person *must* (obviously) feel the same, is there any reason to be sure that Paul would have, necessarily, felt the same.
(So I guess my real is, what might I be missing here? Thank.)
Why is the harper Collins study Bible so different than the NKJV and the NASB – For example in Daniel 7:13-14 both the NASB and the NASB say the ‘Son of Man’ and the Harper Collins says the ‘Ancient One’
I had a NKJV , then I bought the NASB because it is supposed to a better translation. Then on your recommendation I bought the Harper Collins THEN because you put it together and was listed with your other books I bought The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings. Which is the best one to use when I look up the scriptures you are using?
The Harper Collins Study Bible uses the NRSV (which is available in a large number of formats). THe NKJV is a simple updating of the KJV, and the NASB is a very literal translation. the NRSV, in my opinion, is the best translation available. I normally either quote that or provide my own translation, depending on how lively I’m feeling….
I don’t think the analogy really works. Paul want Philemon to see Onesimus as something above a slave, as a brother. He asks Philemon to accept Onesimus back into his household without punishment, but he is confident Philemon will do even more than he is asked. The implication is to set him free to be a deacon for christ.
Is there a relation between the Greek word for “service” in Philemon 13, and the Greek word for “slave” in Philemon 16?
I’m wondering if Paul wanting to keep Onesimus with him in service, is an additional indication that Paul wanted to keep him as his own slave.
Yes, the first is “minister” — someone who serves another — the other is “slave” ANd yes, he is saying he wants Onesimus to serve him (the Greek verb for slave is not transitive, so he could not say “to slave me”)
In the story of the woman caught in adultery, what is Jesus supposed to be writing in the dirt? Some say it is a reference to Jeremiah 17:13. He is writing the names and/or sins of the woman’s accusers–or his actions symbolize doing that. Jeremiah refers to “those who have forsaken you [God] shall be recorded [written?] in the ‘underworld’ (or ‘earth’).” That ties in with Jesus’s saying those without sin should cast the first stone. I guess that fits but seems like a stretch.
Some bolster this by noting that Jeremiah also talks about the same people having “forsaken the living water, the Lord.” The preceding passage in John associates Jesus with “living water” but also says those waters flow from believers’ hearts rather than from Jesus himself-though Jesus can satisfy thirst. The point seems to be that the Scribes and Pharisees rejected Jesus, ie, the living water. That’s their sin.
Others emphasize that the accusers had sinned by not condemning both the man and woman as required in the law. So that’s the sin Jesus is writing in the dirt.
There have been lots of options suggested, including the sins that each of teh accuser committed. Unfortunately the text givs no clue. It was a passage added to John by a scribe, btw, not something John himself wrote.
I’ve been interested in trying to figure out just where Paul stands, so this was great. I can understand that he is a product of his time, so he accepted slavery and apparently also respected the people who were slaves and wanted to see them treated well. I’d be interested in other passages where slavery is mentioned, without making a direct judgment about it. Like Jesus saying he was sent to set the oppressed free in Luke 4, or the brother of the prodigal son says he had been “working like a slave”. These indicate an aversion to the idea of slavery, which would be a first step toward reconsidering it as something acceptable within their belief system.
Unrelated, but I’m in a college class on the new testament, and your textbook is required reading!
Whoa! What college? Who’s the instructor?
Doctor Andrew Langford, he’s a liberal christian. You’ve probably not heard of him.
Thanks. Good luck with the class!
Great article. I always get shocked with the attitude that Saul Paul uses in dealing with his converts.
He uses a psychological manipulative method to get his followers to do what he commands them to do, without explicitly giving an order.
Here he is basically here, want to have an assisting slave free of charge, doesn’t it look this way?
Paul’s “psychological manipulative method” is rather clear in 2 Cor 10:5-6 .
“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.”
That’s exactly the way a cult leader works, Paul was losing everything he had been building when he wrote those words but what is more striking is that even being so explicit he not only achieved his goal of “taking captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” with a handful of poors corinthians ….his followers did it with the entire western civilization !!
The “Epicurean and Stoic philosophers” in Athens who “sneered ” when Paul the “babbler” talked “about the resurrection of the dead” would never believe that two thousand years in the future we have online debates about Jesus’s resurrection…
I had a New Testament professor at a major state university call this Paul’s “theology of arm twisting.” It’s been nearly thirty years since I took that class, but I’m pretty sure he was referring to Philemon.
2 questions:
1-Have you considered or translated your books/work into other languages like Spanish, Arabic,Mandarin etc.?
2-Can you recommend few names of leading Hebrew Bible [Tanakh] critical scholars that the general audience may benefit from their work?
1. My books are translated into 27 languages. 2. I like the book by Richard Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible and by Silverman and Finkelstein, Unearthing the Bible.
A slave was property so Paul reminds Philemon “you owe me your very self” in order not to be charged by him (for Onesimus himself and “ any wrong or owes” he have done to his master).
The letter was addressed to Philemon but also “to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus, and to the church in your house” to show Philemon that his wife(?) Apphia , the local leader of the church Archippus and even all the church will know about Paul’s plea (a little pressure for Philemon)
I don’t think it was really from Paul but from the Pauls’ followers in Ephesus that hired smart Onesimus in Colossae.
A very smart guy Onesimus became later the Ephesian bishop, he is the one that John warns “Remember the height from which you have fallen! ” in Revelation, also in his letter to the Ephesians Ignatius wrote “I received your large congregation in the person of Onesimus, your bishop in this world”.
When Paul’s letters were collected, Onesimus delivered a copy of Philemon along with Colossians and Ephesians , so these three letters were among the original even when forged; 2 Thess and the pastorals were added later.
Any clues how you came up with this scenario
In <200 chars? Not so easy.
I do not believe Paul made it o Rome (lot of problems with Luke version of that final trip) , I find odd the explanation in Acts 20:16 about why Paul avoided Ephesus, I Think in fact he stop there and was finally captured/killed , in Luke times there still were legends about his finals days in Ephesus and Luke addressed this “legends”.
Colossians/Ephesians are considered forgeries but these two epistles are closely related to Philemon (especially Col).
The background of the three letters is the same, an imprisoned Paul that never visited Colossians nor the location targeted in Ephesians ( perhaps a template letter to any new location?) although he was informed about the progress of the evangelization in the Lycus valley.
The story of Onesimus the fugitive slave from Colossae suggest that he is imprisoned in a nearby location. not Rome, it would be too much a coincidence for a fugitive slave fron rural Asia to reach Rome and then ended up in the same prison with Paul.
There is also a new generation of Paul’s collaborators,
Silas(1 Thess , 2 Cor ) ,Apollos (1 Cor ),Barnabas* (1 Cor ,Gal) and Titus (2 Cor ,Gal), are not mentioned in Philemon/Colossians/Ephesians,
but now we have Archippus(Phlm,Col) , Onesimus(Phlm,Col), Mark(Phlm,Col), Aristarchus(Phlm,Col), Demas(Phlm,Col) , Luke (Phlm,Col) and Tychicus (Eph,Col)
I think the three epistles were forged by some Paul followers in Ephesus where Paul was imprisoned in his last days (Paul says he was an “old man” Phil 1:9), maybe because Paul was isolated and could no longer write letters or even he was finally killed or just died and the Ephesians (Archippus,Tychicus,Luke,Demas and Mark) took the business.
They stared new churches in the Lycus Valley, in Colossae they meet Philemon a wealthy and gullible guy who knew about Paul (Paul was a kind of Ephesian Rasputin with strong links with the Praetorium ), so they used Paul’s fame .
In Philemon house there was a very smart salve, Onesimus that was very good at fishing souls , so the Ephesians offered him to join the team, but he was a slave !! So they wrote Philemon in order not to pay half a denarius to Philemon …. .
Have you read “Der historische Jesus” by Gert Theißen and Annette Merz? I’m considering buying it. Would you recommend it or prefer an other book on this subject?
There are a ton of good books about the historical Jesus; those two are very fine scholars.
So, if Paul really was a Roman born as claimed he may well have been super status conscious and eager to own a slave. Recently read some articles and comments on Roman views of non Romans which; apparently, varied over time. One point made was increased social status from Roman citizenship under the early Empire to make up for citizens loss of political power.
As I understand it, you argue that Ephesians is more likely not genuine because Paul believes we will be saved (as in Romans) versus already being saved (as in Ephesians)
In Philippians 3:4 Paul says that he had been blameless with respect to the righteousness of the law.
Yet in Romans 7, Paul writes “For I know the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions for I do not do what I want but I do the very thing that I hate. Now if I do the thing that I do not want, I agree with the law that it is good so now it is no longer I who do it but sin that dwells within me.”
Using your logic could someone say that Philippians proves that Romans isn’t a genuine letter of Paul?
Romans 7 is very complicated and not straightforward. For about 50 years now scholars have made strong arguments that Paul is not writing autobiographically here, even though on the surface he seems to be. In the context he is showing how a person “under the power of sin” reasons, in order to show that the only way to escape this cosmic power is though being baptized in Christ and united iwth him in his death. If you want to see how it works, the classic statement is Krister Stendahl (NT scholar at Harvard), “Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.”
You wrote: “f you want to see how it works, the classic statement is Krister Stendahl (NT scholar at Harvard), “Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.”
Thank you!
In Philippians 3 the “Flesh” that Paul is speaking of is circumcision, the flesh offering law of the Torah. Paul is saying that we are no longer circumcised in the flesh under the law of the Torah but circumcised in the Spirit in the New Covenant (Romans 2:25-29). Paul in Philippians 3 is boasting that if it was Flesh that made one righteous, then he would be superior, as besides being circumcised, he was a jew. an Israelite, a hebrew of hebrews, a pharisee of pharisees. A strong comparison amoung the converted gentiles. But Philippeans 3 says that it is “not” the flesh which make one righteous, but the Spirit.
Paul in Romans 7 is speaking of the sin of “Law the Flesh” (sin of adam) that all are under subjection to (including him) confliction with the righteousness of the “Law of the Spirit” instilled into the heart and mind in the New Covenant Law (Jer 31:31-34). Paul is not singleing himself out, but including himself with all other Christians. Paul is claiming no superiority over any other person (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).
Priscilla and Aquila would have quashed letter to Romans if it were a forgery.
dr bart i saw that scholars vote letter to hebrew was not wrote by paul but is the letter actually claim to be wrote by paul?
Yes. It doesn’t claim to be written by Paul and was certainly not written by him.
Were there any Christian abolitionists in the early church or was slavery universally accepted as God ordained?
We don’t know of any abolitionists, no. And I’m not sure anyone justified it as a divine institution. Like marriage, festivals, and public buildings, it was just a natural part of the social fabric.
Paul could not condemn slavery, at least openly. He was probably very much against it himself, but as he tells in Romans 13, the ruling athority is ordained by God. So I believe Paul was looking for a way to free Onesimus or at worst prevent any punishment to Onesimus. This letter is 100% within the nature of Paul and his doctrine. He is submitting to the Authority yet following his own belief regarding Slavery. I cannot see anything in Paul that would suggest that he supports any type of forced slavery. One must remember, that not all slavery was forced. One could voluntarily sell themselves into slavery. We are not told how Onesimus became a slave.
Possibly so! But I don’t see any evidence he was opposed ot it, even though he discusses it in places.
dr bart actually in order islam to be true that jesus is islam prophet is not necesserally jesus prophecied about islam or muhammad or probably he was we didnt know but the fact that if jesus actually only a prophet of end time taht command to obey torah law and only send to israel that alone is very inline with islamic messenge that jesus is israelite only prophet not this worldwide religion but only for israel and a prophet that said they need to obey torah and probably circumcision also with prohibited food, muhammad is the one that for universal world and quran as you see quran is preserve in recitation n text which more stable and no hereditary mistake also no interpolation , does this tell you something? because torah is corrupted you can see how ot god comman killing grey haired man child baby pregnant woman animal amd many patriach commiting ugly sin like adultery idolatary and incest its absolutly corrupt jew christian and islam is one line of god so if this two previous religion before islam is corrupt while this prophet are exist we can choose islam
There is also no set rules for war in the Jewish Bible like there is in Islam, such as do not target civilians, women, children and the elderly.
dr bart how big is the view that jesus is a prophet not god or yahweh himslef among the scholars ? i really like lary huratado n geza vermes i dont know how much famous scholars out there that regard jesus as proohet only not god or even yahweh
Hurtado definitely believed Jesus was divine. I’d say the vast majority of NT scholars do, ,since the vast majority of them are confessing Christians.
so majority of scholars regard jesus as prophet you said ? whats this mean? i feel very ambigous for some reason sorry for keep asking
No, I’d say the majority of NT scholars consider Jesus the divine Son of God. That’s because most scholars are committed Christians who believe in Jesus.
dr bart so interpolation like johanine comma were in vast majority of latin nt and added very early , does the mark ending also end up in vast majority of subsequent copy also with adilteruous woman or not since they are a big chunk, amd whether the other interpolation also stay inside the bible for lets say 1000 years before someone look at earlier manuscript, who the first to remove the interpolation? did they remove the interpolation in textus receptus or they still have many interpolation until more modern translation after we have more resources amd technology and purified more text
Yes, they are both in teh vast majority of surviving manuscxripts.
Hello Professor Ehrman, firstly thank you for this post, it is a very interesting subject. Secondly I was wondering if you read the works
A. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses – by Bauckham
B. Jesus and the Victory of God – by NT Wright
In these they push the narrative that the gospel writers were eyewitnesses and defend the standard 4 authorship. What is your thoughts on their points if you read their works? Is their line of argument weak?
Thanks again for all you do Professor Ehrman.
Yup. I disagree heartily with both of them, but it would take a long time to explain. I deal with Bauckham explicitly in my book Jesus Before the Gospels (which deals with the same topic).
Seems the “play on words” with the name Onesimus (which means useful) and the word “useful” would suggest that the authenticity is suspect. If it wasn’t actually written by Paul, then what serious concern is it addressing? The letter seems to answer the question of whether a slave can be a Christian, and that a Christian slave can appeal to their fellow Christians (Paul and then Philemon through Paul) for their freedom. There are plenty of scripture verses about slavery, an ancient institution that we all find abhorrent but that is still practiced all over the world today.
All very interesting. I’m wondering about Timothy, though. In the 2nd paragraph of the answer from your textbook, you say ‘…mentioning his “coauthor,” Timothy.’ I have 3 Swedish translations and numerous English ones, but nowhere do i find that quote, “coauthor” in verse 1 (or any other verse). Are you translating some greek manuscript on your own? Or is it simply erroneously put as a quote?
You’re referring to the book of Philemon, right? The first verse indicates that it is a letter written by Paul “and Timonthy,” no?
“Co-sender” is a better term than “coauthor”. Paul was the author (of the undisputeds). The co-senders endorsed the contents of the letters, but did not write them. See Karen Fulton’s PhD thesis, “The Phenomenon of Co-Senders in Ancient Greek Letters and the Pauline Epistles.” If the co-senders were coauthors we would expect Philemon and Philippians and 1 Corinthians to be written with the first person plural but they are not. The first person plural dominates only in 2 Cor and 1 Thess, which were written to respond to information just received from Paul’s co-sender.
Yes, it indicates that. But it doesn’t say what is being quoted (in the 2nd paragraph of the answer) in any translation i have.
I think I”m lost now in what you were saying. I thought you said that Philemon does not claim to be written by both Paul and Timothy.
According to a March 9, 2022 , review in Christian Century, Stephen Young’s recent book, “Our Beloved Brother: The Purpose and Community in Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” “contends that nowhere does the text state that Onesimus either ran away or committed a crime and that scholars throughout the ages have painted Onesimus as a thieving slave further reinforcing cultural stereotypes of noble masters and conniving slaves….” And, … “Paul’s ultimate goal is to shift Philemon’s relationship to Onesimus from one of domination to one of loving mutual and generous partnership.”
Like all texts, it has its puzzles and various interpretations. But that’s one I don’t agree with! I think it’s being read into the text by someone who would prefer it not to say what it appears to be saying!
Given Paul’s imprisonment during that time and my understanding that during imprisonment one had to provide for themselves), I have often wondered whether Philemon may/would have sent provisions to Paul via Onesimus and during Onesimus’s stay Paul converted him to Christianity and, even though Paul was obligated to ensure Onesimus’s return to Philemon, he did so with a special plea given Onesimus new status as a Christian. And, Paul’s comment about “wronged you or owes you” is simply his offering to either make Philemon whole for providing Onesimus his freedom and expressing a hope that Philemon will free him as a sacrificial act of Christian love.
Dr Ehrman.
How do you understand
Matthew 20:25-28
apologists say, ” see, here is a text in the new testament which is against keeping someone as a slave”
Wow. I’m not sure what text *they* are reading, but it ain’t Matthew 20:25-28. Jesus instructs his followers to become slaves.
Dear Prof Ehrman – I searched the blog on “slavery” to find this post because I wanted to send you this interesting news article just published by our national public broadcaster (here in Australia) : https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-12/fugitive-american-slave-john-swanson-jacobs/104029622
I have also seen more recent material from Dr Josh Bowen concerning research (& uncomfortable truths, especially for Fundamentalist types) about slavery in ancient cultures, & certainly in early Hebrew & Christian times. I appreciate this is much closer to the contemporary American consciousness than ours in Australia but we too have dark past chapters which are not well publicised / passively covered up.
Always an issue worthy of attention – for legislators & enforcement, humanitarian efforts (and this blog?) – especially with modern slavery forms always ongoing. Lest we forget.