[1] Nowhere in the literature have I seen it suggested that Onesimus did not run away, nor have I seen it proposed that Onesimus did not accompany the letter back to Colossae.

[2] Meeks, Wayne A., The First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale, 1983) 75–6.Google Scholar

[3] Lohse, E., Colossians and Philemon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 190.Google Scholar Lightfoot discusses Apphia in detail: Lightfoot, J. B., Saint Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (London: acmillan, 1904) 304–7.Google Scholar

[4] Lohse, (Colossians and Philemon, 190)Google Scholar summarizes the possibilities proposed in the literature and concludes it is impossible to determine the relationship of the three. The thesis proposed here follows John Knox: Knox, John, Philemon among the Letters of Paul (New York: Abingdon, 1935) 60–70.Google Scholar

[5] Meeks, Wayne A., The First Urban Christians, 131–6.Google Scholar

[6] ibid.

[7] Knox, J., Philemon, 67–8.Google Scholar

[8] ibid., 61.

[9] It functions as a dative of advantage as in εóλόγον τινός (BAG).

[10] A formula for requests found in petitions; see discussion in part 3 below.

[11] A legal term for referring a case to the (higher) proper authority, ‘send up’; see discussion in part 3 below.

[12] This verb has many varied meanings including [possess’; ‘take possession of’, ‘detain’, ‘arrest’, ‘seize’; ‘lay hands on’, ‘impress for some public service’ (Moulton, J. H. and Mulligan, G., The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1952Google Scholar).

[13] A formula used by scribes (‘as your representative’); Lohse, , Colossians and Philemon, 202 n. 48.Google Scholar

[14] ‘Consent’; Moulton and Mulligan, Vocabulary.

[15] ‘Receive a sum in full and give a receipt for it’ (BAG); see discussion part 4 below.

[16] ‘Separate’. This word also means ‘ivorce’ in the technical sense, as Paul uses it in 1 Cor 7. 10,11 and 15 (BAG).

[17] A commercial term for being in a certain type of partnership; see the discussion in part 5 below.

[18] ‘Injure’; a common term in petitions (Moulton and Mulligan, Vocabulary).

[19] ‘Owe’ (of debts); financial term (BAG).

[20] ‘Charge to someone's account’; a commercial term (BAG).

[21] ‘Make compensation’, ‘pay damages’; a legal technical term (BAG).

[22] ‘Owe in addition’; a commercial term (Moulton and Mulligan, Vocabulary).

[23] Heinrich Schlier, παρρησία, TDNT, 871–86.

[24] Schlier, Heinrich, άνήκει TDNT, 1, 360.Google Scholar

[25] The word γνώμη in its setting here with τò άγαθόν σον and with κατὰ άνάγκην as the opposite of κατὰ Èκούσιον is an ethical/philosophical term. See in particular Hauck, Friedrich, Èκών, TDNT, 2, 469–70.Google Scholar

[26] See n. 25 above.

[27] See n. 25 above.

[28] Stuhlmacher, Peter, Der Brief an Philemon (Zurich: Benziger, 1975) 20–2Google Scholar; also Lohse, E., Colossians and Philemon, 188.Google Scholar

[29] Lohse, E., Colossians and Philemon, 188.Google Scholar

[30] E.g., Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975) 324–32.Google Scholar

[31] Lohse, E., Colossians and Philemon, 187Google Scholar; Stuhlmacher, P., Der Brief, 23.Google Scholar Also Lohmeyer, E., Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1930) 171–2Google Scholar, and Lightfoot, , Saint Paul's Epistles, 310–12.Google Scholar

[32] Schubert, Paul, The Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgiving (Berlin: Töpelman, 1939) 166–81.Google Scholar

[33] Schubert, , Form and Function, 63, 65–6.Google Scholar

[34] Stuhlmacher, P., Der Brief, 20–2.Google Scholar

[35] BDF #339.

[36] BAG (p. 229, 4.g).

[37] BDF ##340 and 342.

[38] The word οπλάγχνα occurs three times in Philemon, each time referring to Onesimus and connecting Onesimus with Paul. In v. 20 Paul summarizes his request with a phrase similar to v. 7: άνάπαυσόν μου τὰ σπλάγχνα granting Paul's request is equivalent to ‘refreshing my heart’. In v. 12 Paul describes Onesimus as τὰ έμὰ σπλάγχνα. In addition to communicating Paul's deep feeling the word communicates Paul's understanding of the interconnectedness of Onesimus with his group.

[39] Knox, J., Philemon, 24nGoogle Scholar; Lightfoot, , St Paul's Epistles, 322–3Google Scholar; Lohse, , Colossians and Philemon, 199–200Google Scholar; Stuhlmacher, P., Der Brief, 39Google Scholar; also Moule, C. F. D., The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon (Cambridge: Cambridge, 1955) 144–5Google Scholar; (inter alios).

[40] Lightfoot, , St Paul's Epistles, 310Google Scholar (especially n. 1, n. 2); Stuhlmacher, P., Der Brief, 39Google Scholar; Light-foot's observation has remained in the commentary literature.

[41] Sampley, J. P., Pauline Partnership in Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 81Google Scholar; Sampley refers to ‘(t)he promissory note of verses 18–19’.

[42] The verb is used for bringing formal charges against someone (e.g., BAG).

[43] This is based on observation of a number of documents; a complete stylistic analysis was not possible.

[44] Attorney Martha F. King who has observed that Paul's presentation of his case in Phlm 8–14 is analogous to a contemporary legal presentation provided the following information on legal format: An analogy can be drawn between Roman legal forms and contemporary (American) legal practice which derives from the Roman. A legal argument consists formally of a recitation of facts broken down into clauses or paragraphs; these are a recital of background information laying a foundation leading up to a conclusion or agreement or to a request. In the case of a petition (the form of which Phlm 8–14 has) the recital of facts leads up to a request to the court based on the facts recited (‘whereas, …; wherefore I request …’). Contemporary legal practice requires ‘all averments should be made in marked paragraphs, the contents of each of which shall be limited as far as practicable to a statement of a single set of circumstances’ (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as amended to Oct 1,1982, Title 28, U.S. Code Annotated); each claim founded upon a separate transaction or occurrence shall be stated separately: Attorney Martha F. King, private communication.

[45] The following examples illustrate the construction: Aur. Sakaon 37¹⁵ – 37¹⁷ δθεν τὴπ ρρςτ οος πόδας σου καταφνγὴν ποιούμαι, δαιομένη καί παρακαλοπσα ύπÈρ άφηλίκων παίδων, Ŏπως Appianus, Punic Wars (quoted in Knox, J., Philemon, 23Google Scholar) τν άπόρων ας ‘Ρώμην Èπανέλθοντα παρακαλούντων PTebt. 1.58⁵²–1.58⁵⁵ (Letter from a tax farmer)

πάλι νπροσεντέλλ

μαί σοι προσεδρεūσα

καί προσπαρακλέσαι Νίκωνα

περί τς λογ[ί]ας.

POxy 1070⁷ – 1070¹⁰

μεζον [ν]ῡν τν μεγάω Σαραπείῳ

πρτΚνμέγα νθν Σαρᾱπιν πα- ρακαλ περί τε τς ζως μν κατ Κν

ὴμνν πάν[τ]ων καί τν χρηστν Èλπι-

[46] Quoted in Knox, J., Philemon, 19–20.Google Scholar

[47] BAG; Knox, J., Philemon, 25.Google Scholar

[48] Lexicons have attempted to distinguish between ‘send up’, ‘refer’ and ‘send back’ by assigning different meanings to άναπέμπω τινὰ πρός τινι and άναπέμπω τινά τινι but it has proved impossible to do this accurately and consistently.

[49] E.g., Lohse, , Colossians and Philemon, 187.Google Scholar

[50] In v. 17 προσλαβοū is not to be taken in the physical sense but in the figurative sense as in the other three occurrences of this verb in Paul's letters (Rom 14. 1, 14. 3, 15. 7). In Rom 16. 1–2 Paul uses προσδέχομαι (and not προσλαμβάνομαι) as he does in Phil 2. 29 where he means ‘welcome someone who is physically present’.

[51] BDF #326.

[52] Turner, N., A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol 3 (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1963) 67.Google Scholar

[53] Robertson, A. T., Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: George H. Doran, 1915) 885–6.Google Scholar

[54] Schrenk, Gottlob, βούλομαι TDNT, 1, 629–33.Google Scholar

[55] Lohse, , Colossians and Philemon, 201 n. 47.Google Scholar

[56] Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary.

[57] Cf. Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary; ‘When diakonos appears in association inscriptions, it seems always to refer to persons whose function more or less directly involved waiting on tables’: Meeks, W. A., The First Urban Christians, 79.Google Scholar

[58] This is also Lohmeyer's conclusion; Lohmeyer argues that Onesimus returned to Colossae simply as a formality in order to be manumitted to return to work with Paul: Lohmeyer, E., Die Briefe, 188.Google Scholar

[59] The analogy with contemporary legal format gives the following explication of vv. 8–14 and of v. 14 in particular: the participial phrases and relative clauses constitute the recital of facts upon which the request is founded. The first clause (v. 8; the ἔχων clause) establishes Paul's relationship with the recipient and the fact that Paul will not command the latter; the second (v. 9b; τοιοūτοςρν) establishes Paul's identity; the first relative clause (vv. 10b-11) establishes that Onesimus has been converted by Paul; the second (v. 12) establishes the bond between Paul and Onesimus and that this is a formal request (άνέπεμψα); the third relative clause establishes that Paul wants to keep Onesimus but that he does not want the recipient's ‘good’ to be compulsory. For this reason (‘wherefore’) Paul makes his request; the fact that Paul wants the recipient of the letter's good deed to be voluntary is as much a foundation for the request as is the fact that Paul wants to retain Onesimus. The difference from the English order of legal argument (in Philemon the ‘wherefore’ clause comes in the middle – παρακαλῶ– as it does in documents in the papyri) may be a result of the differences in the languages: in English a legal argument in the order it occurs in the highly inflected languages Greek and Latin would be impossible to sort out.

[60] The phrase Ẻν σαρκί here, as in Phil 1. 22 (and as in Phil 1. 24) has no pejorative connotations: Lightfoot, , St Paul's Epistles, 341Google Scholar; Lohse, , Colossians and Philemon, 203 n. 62Google Scholar; Stuhlmacher, P., Der Brief, 42–9Google Scholar (inter alios).

[61] BAG; Knox, J., Philemon, 26–7Google Scholar; Lohse, , Colossians and Philemon, 202 n. 57.Google Scholar

[62] Lightfoot, , St. Paul's Epistles, 341.Google Scholar

[63] ‘“He does not say”, writes Chrysostom, “for this cause he fled, but For this cause he was parted: for he would appease Philemon by a more euphemistic phrase. And again he does not say he parted himself, but he was parted: since the design was not Onesimus' own to depart for this or that reason: just as Joseph also, when excusing his brethren, says (Gen 45. 5) God did send me hither!”’: Lightfoot, , St. Paul's Epistles, 340.Google Scholar

[64] Knox, J., Philemon, 30–31Google Scholar; Lohse, , Colossians and Philemon, 206 n. 6Google Scholar; Stuhlmacher, P., Der Brief, 53Google Scholar, esp. summary n. 135.

[65] Sampley, J. P., Pauline Partnership, 13–17.Google Scholar

[66] ibid., 17.

[67] ibid., 79–81.

[68] ibid., 51–77.

[69] Paul's use of παρρησία (v. 8) and his refusal to command brings in an element of duty in friendship or personal relationship consonant with the societas paradigm; cf. Schrenk, Heinrich, παρρησία TDNT, 5, 871–86.Google Scholar

[70] I am deeply indebted to my thesis advisor Paul W. Meyer for supervision, assistance, encouragement and critique at all stages of this work.