Onesimus fugitivus redivivus | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
Volume 75, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0165-2346
  • E-ISSN: 2773-1847

Abstract

The traditional view in Paul’s letter to Filemon that Onesimus was a , a runaway-slave, was gradually abandoned in the twentieth century. Instead, many scholars contend that Onesimus went to Paul as , a friend of the master, to ask him to intercede on Onesimus’ behalf. However, there are some problems with this view. This article shows that the traditional view remains plausible, building on the letter itself and the Graeco-Roman context.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/KT2024.1.006.WING
2024-01-01
2024-05-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arzt-Grabner, P. (2004). ‘Onesimus erro: Zur Vorgeschichte des Philemonbriefes’. ZNW, 95, 131-143.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arzt-Grabner, P. (2010). ‘How to deal with Onesimus? Paul’s Solution within the Frame of Ancient Legal and Documentary Sources’. In: D.Francois Tolmie (ed.), Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Berlin: De Gruyter, 113-142.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barclay, J.M.G. (1991). ‘Paul, Philemon and the Dilemma of Christian Slave-Ownership’. NTS, 37, 164-165.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beekes, R. (2010). Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionaries 10.2. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bellen, H. (1971). Studien zur Sklavenflucht im römischen Kaiserreich. Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei 4. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Callahan, A.D. (1993). ‘Paul’s Epistle to Philemon: Toward an Alternative Argumentum’. HTR, 86, 357-376.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Callahan, A.D. (1995). ‘John Chrysostom on Philemon: A Response to Margaret M. Mitchell’. HTR88, 149-156.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Church, F. F. (1978). ‘Rhetorical Structure and Design in Paul’s Letter to Philemon’. Harvard Theological Review, 71, 17-33.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cook, J.G. (2017). ‘R. Gest. div. Aug. 25.1: TRIGINTA FERE MILLIA CAPTA DOMINIS AD SUPPLICIUM SUMENDUM TRADIDI’. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 201, 68-71.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. De Vos, C.S. (2001). ‘Once a Slave, Always a Slave? Slavery, Manumission and Relational Patterns in Paul’s Letter to Philemon’. JSNT, 82, 89-105.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dunn, J.D.G. (1996). The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Carlisle: The Paternoster Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fitzmyer, J.A. (2000). The Letter to Philemon. A New Translation and Commentary, AB 34C. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Frilingos, C. (2000). ‘“For My Child, Onesimus”: Paul and Domestic Power in Philemon’. JBL, 119, 91-104. https://doi.org/10.2307/3267970.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fuhrmann, C.J. (2012). Policing the Roman Empire. Soldiers, Administration, and Public Order. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Glaze, R.E. (1996). ‘Onesimus: Runaway or Emissary?’. Theological Educator, 54, 3-11.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Greer, R.A. (2010). Theodore of Mopsuestia: The Commentaries on the Minor Epistles of Paul: Text. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Grenfell, B.P. en A.S.Hunt. eds. (1920). Oxyrhynchus Papyri XIV. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Harrill, J.A. (1999). ‘Using the Roman jurists to interpret Philemon: A response to Peter Lampe’. ZNW, 90, 135-138.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Heine, R.E. (2000). ‘In Search of Origen’s Commentary on Philemon’. HTR, 93, 117-133.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hon Ho Ip, A. (2017). A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of the Letter to Philemon in Light of the New Institutional Economics An Exhortation to Transform a Master-Slave Economic Relationship into a Brotherly-Love Relationship. WUNT II 444. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Huttner, U. (2013). Early Christianity in the Lycus Valley, Early Christians in Asia Minor 1, vertaald door David Green. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lampe, P. (1985). ‘Keine ‘Sklavenflucht’ des Onesimus’. ZNW, 76, 135-137.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Mitchell, M.M. (1995). ‘John Chrysostom on Philemon: A Second Look’. HTR, 88, 135-148.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Nordling, J.G. (1991). ‘Onesimus Fugitivus: A Defense of the Runaway Slave Hypothesis in Philemon’. JSNT41, 97-119.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Peters, T.C. (2001). Plinius de Jongere. De brieven. Baarn: Ambo.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Rapske, B.M. (1991). ‘The Prisoner Paul in the Eyes of Onesimus’. NTS, 37, 187-203.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Smit, P.-B., T.Renssen. (2014). ‘The passivum divinum: The Rise and Future Fall of an Imaginary Linguistic Phenomenon’. Filología Neotestamentaria, 27, 3-24.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Tolmie, D.F. ed. (2010). Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Wilcken, U. (1927). Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Winedt, M. (2023). ‘Wie is mijn Onesimus? Paulus’ brief aan Filemon opnieuw gelezen’. MaW, 42/2, 36-45.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Winter, S.C. (1987). ‘Paul’s Letter to Philemon’. NTS, 33, 1-15.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Wright, N.T. (2013). Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/KT2024.1.006.WING
Loading
Keyword(s): fugitive; master; Onesimus; Paul; slavery
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error