Paul and slavery in Philemon

[BartholomewB]

I am puzzled by the three-cornered drama in the Epistle to Philemon. There are three characters in the story: Philemon, the owner of a runaway slave; Onesimus, the runaway; and Paul, who sends Onesimus back to his owner carrying a written message to him, which is this epistle.

What puzzles me is this: In the message, is Paul asking Philemon to give Onesimus his freedom, or not? Some commentators say he isn’t, some say he is, though in the form of a heavy hint rather than an outright, clear-cut request. This is the key passage (verses 16-18):

15 Perhaps this is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back for ever, 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. 17 So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me. 18 If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. 19 I, Paul, write this with my own hand, I will repay it—to say nothing of your owing me even your own self.

 

[Bithynian]

There was an overt tendency in Greco-Roman culture to address and refer to slaves (and other servants) using the neuter gender as though they were possessions.

τά χρήματα ta chremata (money) and τά κτήματα ta ktemata (income, possessions) are both neuter, and so too words such as ανδροποδον andropodon (war captive, a slave obtained through war) and οικυρημα oikurema, the latter being translated as “housewife” but literally as “thing which cleans the house”. They were, in effect, regarded not as people owned, but as things owned.

Paul, on the other hand, is at pains to stress the humanity of Onesimus, variously referring to him as his own child, his very heart and Philemon’s brother.

I interpret v 8 and 21 as essentially Paul saying “while I could use the big stick, Philemon, and force you to do it, I won’t because I know that you’ll do the right thing - or else”. Presumably Philemon didn’t fancy his name being heard by the entire Christian community alongside Hymenaeus and Alexander as blasphemers whom Paul “handed over to Satan” (1 Tim 1:20, a very explicit example of church discipline for contumacy).

 

[BartholomewB]

Thank you, @Bithynian. Yes, your argument is very persuasive. I think my suspicions were groundless. It’s obvious that any commentator, whether Catholic or Protestant, has a vested interest, so to speak, in proving Paul not guilty of the charge of being less than fully opposed to the institution of slavery, and I wanted to make sure that the Greek text does, in fact, support that verdict.

What you say about the neuter gender is a fascinating insight into the mindset of Classical antiquity. I’ve just been looking at a bilingual text of Philemon and I have learned that, in v. 10, τέκνον, “child,” is also a neuter noun and can designate either a son or a daughter. Is there anything that can be read into the use of the neuter gender in this case as well?

 

[redal]

Another issue regarding slavery is the confusion over “slavery” as it existed in ancient civilizations and then comparing it to new world slavery (“The Peculiar Institution”) where slaves were treated as chattel, bred, and sold tearing apart families.

I’m not saying ancient slavery was moral, but when the literal and historical sense of slavery is considered, the ancient model is very different compared to antebellum slavery in the U.S. Modern day American apologists have attempted to paint new world slavery as benign and paternalistic, but even a precursor examination proves how ludicrous such claims are.

 

[Bithynian]

Is there anything that can be read into the use of the neuter gender in this case as well?

I think the neuter gender for τεκνον is mostly incidental to the word. Grammatical gender is often quite arbitrary and has little analogy with the actual “gender” of the referent (if indeed there is any gender to begin with).

That being said, it’s important to note that Paul avoids here (and indeed throughout all his writings) the other very common word for child παις pais, which was frequently used as a polite, familial term for “slave” as a reflection of the paterfamilias (father of the family) having authority over possessed slaves. Paul even declines to affirm any father-son (whether παις or τεκνον) distinction between Onesimus and Philemon: he instead attributes equitable status with both as brothers.

 

[BartholomewB]

Modern day American apologists have attempted to paint new world slavery as benign and paternalistic, but even a precursor examination proves how ludicrous such claims are.

No one who has read anything about it could imagine that slavery in the antebellum South was either benign or paternalistic. But was slavery in antiquity any better? I don’t think so.

 

[Hodos]

Paul is not urging Philemon to free Onesimus. Rather Paul is acting on behalf of Onesimus who feels he has wrong Philemon by running away to reconcile Onesimus to Philemon. Paul apparently knows that Philemon is a Christian, and Philemon is at least aware of who Paul is as an apostle. Paul shows that Philemon came to Christ after he ran away from his master, and even served Paul on his missionary journeys to some effect. Paul explains Onesimus’ desire to return and be reconciled to his master and urges Philemon to forgive and receive him back not only as a slave / master relationship, but as a brother to a brother. This doesn’t mean that Philemon will necessarily set Onesimus free, but they may share their faith with one another even as they carry out their work in their respective vocations.

With regard to the nature of slavery in the ancient world, there is no simple answer. There were many different forms of slavery, some of which could be quite benign, and offered important social benefits that allowed people to pay debts and survive rather than perish in harsh times. Others could be brutal. My guess is that Onesimus was a bondservant of some kind, but I could be wrong. We simply don’t know what kind of slavery Onesimus was under. For all we know, Onesimus could have been a bondservant, offering his labor for a period of years in exchange for his patron Philemon paying off his debts and providing him with shelter, food, clothing, and in many cases pay. We just don’t know what that relationship was.

 

[OddBird]

I have read several interpretations of it too, among others that Paul asks Philemon not to punish Onesimus for running away, and that Paul asks Philemon to free Onesimus.

I personally am not sure of how I read it, but I would concur with @Bithynian’s point about the telling use of the word τεκνον, and say that what is clear at least to me is that Paul is trying to disconnect, in Philemon’s mind, Onesimus from his slave status to replace it with another (brother in Christ).

 

[Hodos]

τά χρήματα ta chremata (money) and τά κτήματα ta ktemata (income, possessions) are both neuter, and so too words such as ανδροποδον andropodon (war captive, a slave obtained through war) and οικυρημα oikurema , the latter being translated as “housewife” but literally as “ thing which cleans the house”. They were, in effect, regarded not as people owned, but as things owned.

Not sure how much I buy this argument. Grammatical gender does not necessarily refer to how the Greeks thought about an object or idea or that they valued something as less than human. As a great example, the Holy Spirit is a grammatically neuter because the word translated as spirit, wind, or breath is grammatically neuter. The early Christians however definitely saw the Holy Spirit as a personal being. As another example, the word sin is grammatically feminine, but the word sinner is grammatically masculine. Again, grammatical gender does not always correspond to masculine, feminine or neuter traits, and the determination of an idea with respect to its grammatical gender is not always consistent.

With regard to the word for housewife, oiku (from oikia for house) and rhema (from word or saying) literally means the word of the house, one speaking for the house.

And as Bithynian pointed out, Paul refers to Onesimus as his tekvov, another grammatically neuter word, but one carrying personal meaning (child, offspring, or descendent).

My point is that you may be reading something into the text that the syntax and grammar doesn’t support.

 

[Bithynian]

Not sure how much I buy this argument.

The connection between grammatical gender and the status of freedom (or slavery) is made throughout scholarship.

See for e.g. Mactoux’s ‘Pour une approche nouvelle du champ lexical de l’esclavage chez orateurs attiques’; Thalmann’s ‘The swineherd and the bow: Representations of class in the Odyssey’; and Abramovitz ‘Greek and Roman terminologies of slavery’ in the Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Slaveries.

With regard to the word for housewife, oiku (from oikia for house) and rhema (from word or saying) literally means the word of the house, one speaking for the house.

οἰκούρημα isn’t etymologically related to ρῆμα. It’s derived from the addition of the neutering suffix -μα to the verb οἱκουρέω (itself from οἶκος and oὖρος “watcher, guardian”) with an associated compensatory lengthening of the thematic vowel ε to η.

 

[Dan_Defender]

One must remember that at the time of St Paul, the whole economy of the Mediterranean was built on slavery. So freeing a slave was not necessarily doing him a favor. A free laborer would have a hard time competing with slave labor, and could be worse off, not having the security of daily food.

 

[Bithynian]

The connection between grammatical gender and the status of freedom (or slavery) is made throughout scholarship.

I should clarify that this is not a universal relationship. Not every neuter word is related to slavery, nor is every slavery-related word grammatically neuter. Nonetheless, such a dynamic has been closely observed amongst neuter slave-related words (nouns, adjectives, verbs and pronouns) for several centuries of scholarship.

From Abramovitz’ article:

“Unlike others, [andrapodon] is an unequivocal slave term. Like tetrapodon, it is neuter and in the plural, reinforcing the message that andrapoda are nothing but items of property under the absolute powers of others.”

The Greeks would’ve been aware of this. It was a stylistic convention in Classical and Hellenistic literature to be as contemptuous and denigrating as possible towards those lower in the hierarchy (whether socially, culturally or economically). If one were to refer to Pericles’ close political associates (i.e. fellow citizens of Athens), one would use the masculine pronoun οἰ hoi and write οἰ περὶ Περικλέα hoi peri Periklea (literally “those men who are around Pericles”). For his slaves, the neuter pronoun τά ta is instead used: τὰ Περικλέους ta Perikleous. The latter translates very literally and rudely like “Pericles’ stuff”.

 

[BartholomewB]

It was a stylistic convention in Classical and Hellenistic literature to be as contemptuous and denigrating as possible towards those lower in the hierarchy (whether socially, culturally or economically).

Comparing this observation with what you’ve said in your earlier posts, can we draw the conclusion that, in this epistle, Paul is taking great care to avoid the kind of dehumanizing language that was in conventional use at the time? And, if so, does that make him a unique instance, or were there other writers — whether Christian, Jewish, or pagan — of whom it can also be said that they showed the same awareness?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

One must remember that at the time of St Paul, the whole economy of the Mediterranean was built on slavery. So freeing a slave was not necessarily doing him a favor. A free laborer would have a hard time competing with slave labor, and could be worse off, not having the security of daily food.

And yet Onesimus ran away. Surely he would know whether he would be worse off by escaping slavery more than we would.

 

[Phatmass1]

And yet Onesimus ran away. Surely he would know whether he would be worse off by escaping slavery more than we would.

Facts…

 

[Bithynian]

Paul is taking great care to avoid the kind of dehumanizing language that was in conventional use at the time

I think, so yes. Paul is quite subtle, dexterous and sensitive to context with his use of language.

Another good example is his speech at the Areopagus (I assume here to be Paul’s actual words rather than any literary licence by Luke): he uses the polite address for Athenian citizens (ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι andres Athenaioi) and he also uses the archaic, Classical meaning of the verb θεραπεύειν therapeuein “to serve” (rather than “to cure, heal” as is every other instance of the verb in the Scriptures).

Both are subtle, yet nevertheless would’ve made a significant impression on a crowd of Athenian citizens who were active in the political debates of the Areopagus, who were politically bitter due to Rome’s annexation of Athens, and who viewed the Athenian πολιτεία politeia (city-state, republic) as a defender of Classical Greek ideals against the garum-eating (a smelly fish sauce famous in Rome) Italic barbarians from across the sea.

And, if so, does that make him a unique instance, or were there other writers — whether Christian, Jewish, or pagan — of whom it can also be said that they showed the same awareness?

I unfortunately don’t have an answer to this excellent question.

I should say that my reading of the passage is not the consensus, and for the most part the consensus (insofar as I’ve noticed) is that there is no consensus for Philemon. There are many ambiguities, mostly because the word δοῦλος had so broad a range of meaning (heavily context dependent) that it often cannot offer further specificity. It was (as Abramovitz noticed) sometimes even used for people who were free but nonetheless contractually obliged to work for a wage.

 

[poche]

I believe that Paul is asking to give him his freedom of his own will. As a runaway, Philemon would be constantly looking over his shoulder. If his owner gives him his freedom of his own fee will he gains merit on his own part.
Paul lived in a different time where the society was different and he is addressing the situation in the best way he knew how.