PHILEMON and COLOSSIANS It Is Generally Assumed That Two Epistles
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
chapter three PAULINE INFLUENCE: PHILEMON AND COLOSSIANS It is generally assumed that two epistles of the Pauline corpus were ad- dressed to Colossae, namely the Epistle to Philemon and the Epistle to the Colossians. The church in Colossae is mentioned (alongside Laodicea and Hierapolis) only in Colossians; there is no place name in Philemon, but the epistle mentions a whole series of people who also appear in Colossians.1 In addition, the commentary of Theodoret on the Epistle to Philemon points to a living tradition in Late Antiquity that localized Philemon in Colossae: his house could even still be seen there.2 Initially, then, there can hardly be any doubt that Philemon lived in Colossae.3 Nevertheless the observation that Pauline authorship of Colossians must be rejected on the basis of numerous philological and theological arguments creates a delicate problem.4 This problem goes hand in hand with the di culty of determining the Sitz im Leben of Colossians and using it in turn to determine the position of the Epistle to Philemon. Quite recently, furthermore, Günther Schwab’s dissertation has chal- lenged the consensus of New Testament scholarship, using detailed analysis of the Greek of the Pauline corpus to emphasize the insu cient evidence for the authenticity of the Epistle to Philemon and even raising the possibility of its dependence on Colossians.5 But there is no cogent historical explana- tion for the background or cui bono of a ctive Epistle to Philemon,6 so that it probably retains its place among the proto-Paulines. 1 Lohse 21977, pp. 246–248. 2 PG 82, 872A: Τῶν πεπιστευκότων ὁ Φιλήµων ἐτύγχανεν ὤν· πόλιν δὲ εἶχε τὰς Κολασσάς. Καὶ ἡ οἰκία δὲ αὐτοῦ µέχρι τοῦ παρόντος µεµένηκε. Cf. also Cadwallader 2011, p. 169. 3 But consider the skepticism expressed by Arzt-Grabner 2003, pp. 80f., who assumes that the pseudonymity of Colossians rules it out as evidence and also conjectures that Philemon’s home was near Ephesus. Johnson 1950, pp. 9f. considers associating Philemon with the church in Laodicea an attractive hypothesis. 4 For the moment, Schnelle 82013, pp. 361–367. For further details, see pp. 110–112 below. 5 Schwab 2011, pp. 87–199. 6 Schwab 2011, pp. 152–156 suggests reading the epistle as an exhortation to wealthy members of the Christian community to lend support (including material support) to the 82 chapter three 3.1. Persons and Networks 3.1.1. Paul’s Journeys in Asia Minor Paul’s de ning role for early Christianity in Asia Minor is undisputed. Whether he ever visited the Lycus Valley personally is ultimately uncer- tain:7 Acts does not mention any of the cities in that area. A visit during the rst missionary journey (c. 46–48) is out of the question, since it con- centrated on Pisidia and Lycaonia.8 During his second journey, Paul and his companions traversed Asia Minor roughly from south to north (c. 49): starting from Iconium “they went through the Phrygian and Galatian region and were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the word in Asia.”9 This route brought him to Mysia.10 If we assume that Luke used Asia to mean the Roman province of that name,11 Paul, Silas, and Timothy went far to the east as they traveled northwards. Nevertheless the author’s usage shows that he could also use Asia as a collective term for the cities located directly on the Aegean coast.12 This interpretation should be considered here, since Mysia—as part of the province of Asia13—is named explicitly as the end of Paul’s itinerary. But even on this premise the sequence of regions named ( rst Phrygia, then Galatia) suggests a leg from southwest to northeast and hence a broad arc along the eastern border of the province of Asia,14 so that contact with Lycus Valley is also ruled out during the second missionary journey. church authorities. But the case of Onesimus is a challenge to historical analysis precisely because the concrete background was familiar to the addressees. It cannot serve as an illustration bearing on a general problem. 7 See also p. 123 below, where I argue for a stay in Colossae and Laodicea but not in Hierapolis. 8 Aharoni / Avi-Yonah / Rainey / Safrai 42002, p. 183. On the chronology of Paul’s journeys, see briey Lohse 1996, pp. 53–57. A chronological anchor point is Paul’s meeting with L. Iunius Gallio Annaeanus, the proconsul of Achaea, in Corinth in 51/52 (during his second missionary journey). See Eck 1999, col. 67; Corsten 2011, p. 128; also Mitchell 1993, II, p. 5. 9 Acts 16:6: ∆ιῆλθον δὲ τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν κωλυθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος λαλῆσαι τὸν λόγον ἐν τῇ ᾽Ασίᾳ.—Φρυγίαν is probably an adjective. Cf. Breytenbach 1996, pp. 113f. 10 Acts 16:7f. 11 As suggested, for example, by French 1994, p. 53. 12 Trebilco 1994, p. 302, citing Acts 2:9–11. 13 Cf. Jones 1937, p. 85. 14 Lüdemann 1987, p. 184 speaks of a “zigzag route”; tentative reconstruction of the itin- erary in Breytenbach 1996, pp. 117f.; Breytenbach 2004, pp. 166–168. Cf. also Sänger 2010, pp. 30f., and the reconstruction in Aharoni / Avi-Yonah / Rainey / Safrai 42002, p. 184..