I come now to the final Pauline letter of the New Testament, Philemon. If you recall, Paul’s letters are ordered by length; this is by far the shortest, a real one-pager. Given it’s brevity, I’ll be dealing with its major themes and emphases and the questions of Who, When and Why in just this one post.
First, a 50-word summary:
Paul’s letter to his former convert Philemon concerns Philemon’s slave Onesimus, who has fled from his master, possibly with stolen goods, found Paul in prison, converted, and begged him to intervene on his behalf– which Paul does by urging Philemon to receive his slave as a fellow believer, without punishment.
Here is how I discuss the letter in my book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford University Press), edited a bit.
Hello Dr. Bart Erhman
Do you think the statement of “Once saved always saved is biblical”?
It seems that some books say it true and other books deny it.
The phrase itself is modern, often used to expound a Calvinist view of salvation. Those who use it can certainly appeal to biblical passages and those who oppose it can do so as well. For the latter, Hebrews 6:1-8; 10:26-31 are commonly cited.
For what it’s worth, Chris Hansen has a book-length treatment arguing against the authenticity of Philemon. It’s called: “The Empty Prison Cell: The Authenticity of Philemon Reconsidered”
The rhetorical strategies Paul seems to employ in this short letter are fascinating. I’m especially interested in what happens when we juxtapose vv. 8-9 with v. 17 (I’m relying on the NABRE translation in what follows). In vv. 8-9 Paul says “I have the full right in Christ to order to order you to do what is proper,” but then urges Philemon to receive Paul’s words as an expression of love. In v. 17 we read “So if you regard me as a partner, welcome [Onesmius] as you would me.” On the one hand, Paul does place himself on a position of parity–a brother in Christ–with Philemon, but it seems possible in light of v. 8’s reminder that Paul *could* command Philemon what to do is meant to be a sotto voce form of commanding. As if Paul’s approach is “I’m not going to tell you what to do, but here’s what I want you to do,” especially since v. 17b can be read, at least in the English translation I’m working with, as a directive, not a plea or suggestion expressed between equals.
Off Topic: Why did the Xtns put so much emphasis on complete abstinence from sex. It was the supreme virtue. I am almost thru with Dr. Paula Fredriksen’s “Christian Antiquities,” and she devotes an entire chapter to it. The only beneficiary is the practitioner. It doesn’t make the world a better place unless you have a weird sense of humor.
Well, obvoiusly not all Christians did. But for those who wanted to devote themselves entirely to heaven, pleasures of the body were obstacles that kept them tied to earth.
Is it absolutely certain that Phl is authentic?
Nope. Nothing is *absolutely* certain when it comes to the authorship of ancient texts. But most scholars see it as pretty certain.
If Philemon is named after one in Greek mythology who gave hospitality to god’s and Onesimus means ‘useful’, might these names be nicknames? Or could more of the letter be coded? Might Onesimus have already been useful in the church in Ph’s house and there have been a falling out and St.Paul didn’t want the gory details to leak out?
Onesimus was a common name for slaves (often named with epithets); Philemon was a known name as well — including some ancient Greek scholars (a famous poet; a famous grammarian). So usually they are understood to be actual people. But clearly something is going on behind the letter that we can’t access: it’s one of those things where you hear one side of a conversation when only the two conversing really know completely what they’re talking about….