Onesimus Our Brother

Reading Religion, Race, and Culture in Philemon

Matthew V. Johnson, James Gerard Noel, Demetrius K. Williams, Matthew V. Johnson, James A. Noel, Demetrius K. Williams, Matthew V. Johnson, James A. Noel, Demetrius K. Williams

• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9780800663414
• eBook ISBN: 9781451410211
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

chapter one

“No Longer as a Slave”

Reading the Interpretation History
of Paul’s Epistle to Philemon

DEMETRIUS K. WILLIAMS

Trivial, insignificant, banal, unspiritual: these are some of the adjectives that have characterized the early church’s reading of Paul’s letter to Philemon in the initial era of its interpretation history.1 According to J. B. Lightfoot, the ancient church did not lavish much attention on this letter because it was taken up with questions about life in this world and “the gospel is not concerned with trivia.”2 That is, this short letter did not address an issue of importance for the early church, as did Paul’s theologically profound epistles (excluding the deuteropaulines)—Romans and Galatians—or those laden with explosive polemics and ethical significance, such as the Corinthian correspondence, or 1 Thessalonians and Philippians. Philemon addressed a mundane issue at best, at least in the opinion of the early church: slavery. Slavery, historians of classical antiquity have noted, was commonplace throughout the Roman Empire. This subject did not require or demand the attention of early interpreters. Perhaps the only reason the brief letter found its way into the canon is that it happened to carry the name and influence of the great apostle Paul.3 As a part of the Christian canon, circumstances eventuated the necessity to offer interpretation and commentary to justify and rationalize Philemon’s place in the canon, its usefulness for doctrine and praxis, and its importance and meaning for the church.

Overview and Approach:
An Ideological Optic/Option

Over the many centuries, Philemon has attracted hardy yet redundant commentary by elite interpreters in the church and academy, especially in the last three centuries. One reason is perhaps the extremely brief nature of the letter (in comparison to Paul’s other letters);4 another is the development of what has become known as the “traditional” or “normative reading” of Philemon, about which more will be said below. In the normative reading, Paul pleads the case of a runaway (fugitive) slave, whom he is returning to his master, though in a repentant and “converted” state; but this transformation in no way alters his social condition or status as a slave. This very brief normative reading, first developed in the early church, supplied the basic structure upon which many subsequent commentaries and interpretations have been built. In addition to this normative reading, the perspective of many interpreters/readers in the history of the West can be viewed as valuing the epistle to Philemon according to three overarching foci: (1) as a resource for teaching Christians moral lessons, especially for expressing the character of Paul, or even as an example of the gospel’s power to convert so low an example of humanity as a “good-for-nothing” slave (an opinion especially held in the early church up to the Reformation era—since the letter was viewed early on as lacking significant theological value); (2) as a resource for debating and negotiating the ethical-religious and social-political circumstances that would seem to invite Philemon into the discourse, that is, the historical, religious, and social issues related to slavery (evidenced both in the ancient and modern contexts); and (3) as a means or resource, particularly for modern scholarship, to advocate for or support the Pauline “authorship” of Colossians.5 In general, a historical interpretive/reading paradigm and perspective has dominated the normative or traditional interpretation of Philemon.

More recent approaches to reading Philemon are a result of newer currents in the global reading community that came to fruition in the 1990s. These readings and interpretive perspectives are also nonetheless influenced by political, social, religious, and historical circumstances, but they are increasingly more cognizant of the lingering effects of the history of European empire-building and quests for the political domination of non-European peoples. These interpretive perspectives (at least in theory and intention) attempt to “read from the margins,” that is, from a perspective of those who have been traditionally locked out from the dominant elite discourses and rhetorics. This interest has come primarily from biblical scholars belonging to one or another minority group within Western culture or from those in countries not accounted as a part of the dominant culture of the West.

In this regard, biblical scholars have increasingly explored how biblical criticism serves to advance and advocate for particular ideologies and political agendas. One of the primary challenges to biblical interpretation is that the enterprise of biblical studies has been traditionally Eurocentric. According to David deSilva, “There is an uncanny collusion between the spread of the gospel and the spread or European imperialism throughout the world. Traditional biblical criticisms have tended to be used to answer questions of interest to white males who spoke from the vantage point of the dominant culture, and have only recently begun to be used to address questions of interest to the less-empowered (for example, women, people of color, and so on).”6 The questions and interests of those that are outside of the dominant mainstream of Western culture and concern appear to share a common focus: their readings are focused through the lens of ideological criticism. Ideological approaches within recent biblical interpretation comport well with the experiences and perspectives of those who are “less-empowered” and who speak from within and perceive life “from the margins”—that is, readings influenced by postcolonial, African American, and feminist perspectives, to name a few, all of which can be viewed as focusing their approaches through the lens of ideological criticism.

Ideological criticism, in simple terms, explores the relationship between rhetoric and power.7 According to Sonja Foss, “The primary goal of the ideological critic is to discover and make visible the dominant ideology or ideologies embedded in an artifact and the ideologies that are being muted in it.”8 Ideological criticism, then, in itself is a kind of rhetorical criticism and finds a ready partner within biblical studies because “ideographs and the ideological commitments they are assumed to represent have undeniably rhetorical natures.”9 This is an important connection for biblical critics because (biblical) texts are rhetorical: they seek to persuade, to advance an agenda, to limit and constrain readers in multiple ways. Thus we can see how an ideological approach within biblical criticism can effectively contribute to the kinds of questions and concerns “marginalized readers” might bring to the interpretation of biblical texts.10

An ideological examination can begin with the investigation of the interpreters of texts in order to understand how the ideology of an interpreter affects the way the text is interpreted and what ends that ideology serves. In this regard, one seeks to understand how sociocultural location, ethnicity, and gender can constrain an interpreter, either past or present, and how this might contribute to the results of any investigation of a text. Another level of investigation seeks to explore the ideology of texts themselves—that is, the ways in which ideology has shaped biblical texts and how the text affects readers in their own situation. Ideological criticism, then, “is a deliberate effort to read against the grain—of texts, of disciplinary norms, of traditions, of cultures. It is a disturbing way to read because ideological criticism demands a high level of self-consciousness and makes an explicit, unabashed appeal to justice.”11

Finally, this investigation must be applied also to investigators themselves. While there is no formal methodological procedure in place for engaging these broad examinations, ideological criticism invites the investigator to repeated close readings of the text from the standpoint of a new set of questions, which has the potential to open new interpretive possibilities and to reach new conclusions.

In order to uncover new interpretive possibilities of Paul’s letter to Philemon, an examination requires “detailed critical engagement and interaction with not only the passage itself, but also with the history of its interpretation and application.”12 Why is engaging the interpretive history of Philemon as important as examining the passage or text itself? The importance of such an examination is that it can expose the ideological tendencies that have guided the traditional interpretation history of Philemon and its application. On one hand, the traditional history of interpretation has muted the voices and viewpoints, the commitments and concerns of marginalized groups:

The traditional “history of the interpretation” of the Bible focuses on the pursuits of German, French and English scholars (and their American followers). These observations are important because, taken as a whole, they strongly suggest that biblical interpreters have hitherto been far too concerned with Europe, what comes out of Europe and what is of interest to Europeans. In many instances the message of Scripture may have been limited or even undermined and subverted because of the interests of Europeans and ­Euro-Americans; they have not been allowed to speak prophetically “from the margins” as well.13

On the other hand, it is important to ask, “What traditionally has been the purpose and goal of a history of interpretation?” The exercise was developed in the early church in the battle between orthodoxy and heresy. “In these contexts,” for example, Clement of Alexandria “produces ‘false’ and ‘true’ genealogies [i.e., “histories”] of Christian teachings; this rhetorical strategy functions to define his particular vision for Christianity as its true form while making other forms of Christian thought and practice appear fragmented and illegitimate . . . particularly [by] contrasting claims to authoritative interpretation of scripture and the practices inferred from these interpretations.”14 In other words, the purpose of a “history of interpretation” has been to show that a particular interpretive tradition is in line with a particular authoritative/normative reading of Scripture. This practice has continued in the modern context within the tradition of biblical studies. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza exposes the complicity of institutional procedures in constructing and perpetuating certain interpretive lineages that have marginalized and excluded other readings of Scripture: “Students being tested on their knowledge of biblical interpretation, for instance, will be certified if they know ‘whitemale’ Euro-American tradition of biblical interpretation. Their knowledge of African-American or feminist biblical interpretation does not count. Conversely, students who have no knowledge of either African-American, Hispanic, or biblical interpretation will be certified as competent.”15

The present “interpretation history” seeks to contribute to the study of Philemon and to explore its potential interpretive possibilities by realigning its reading perspective. Instead of situating my reading perspective with elite interpreters and their reading locations and claims of “normativity,” I situate my reading with those who have been marginalized—whose readings and interpretations of scripture have not been included in normative “histories of interpretation.” In terms of the characters in the text of Philemon, the traditional interpretations have read from the perspective either of Paul (a nominally free person of Hellenistic Jewish descent, living under Roman political domination) or of Philemon (a presumably well-to-do free person and a householder and owner of one or more slaves). My reading will be situated from the presumed perspective of Onesimus, an enslaved and marginalized (non)person in the Greco-Roman imperial context.

Situating one’s reading is important because each reading perspective has a different set of questions, values, and concerns. Moreover, I will utilize an ideological optic and option in order to “read the readings” (interpretations) of the letter to Philemon. What is meant by the choice of an ideological optic is, I think, fairly clear: I will examine the interpretation history of Philemon in an effort to expose the ideological commitments of the reading perspectives of previous interpretive traditions. In terms of an ideological option, I mean that I do not hedge on the question of my own commitments and values or hide behind a veil of objectivity, which might mask my real agenda. I admit up front that I am making an open choice to read from this perspective, recognizing that all “readings” are ideological. For too long, privileged theological readings of the Bible have masked the ideological interests well hidden behind its critical methods of interpretation (for example, regarding gender, race, sex, ethnicity, religious privilege, and so on). But as Louis Althusser warns, “As such there is no such thing as an innocent reading, we must say what reading we are guilty of.”16 Hence, my own reading perspective locates me as a married-with-children African American male in my mid-forties, academically/theologically trained both in New Testament and Christian origins (historical-critical methodology) and religious studies (comparative methodology); but also as a product of the African American religious tradition—the Baptist tradition in particular—with the allied social-political tradition of struggle against racism and for equality and justice. I have remained an active participant in my religious tradition as an ordained minister (having served several churches in various ministerial and pastoral capacities and currently serving as a pastor of a Baptist congregation). I have also been teaching simultaneously in university and seminary/theological school settings. Thus my reading perspective, conditioned by my ethnic, sociopolitical, academic, and religious locations, opts for a liberative reading of Scripture.

My investigation of the interpretation history of Philemon does not pretend to be exhaustive. There may be works that some readers consider seminal or essential that may not appear in the pages of this chapter. In this regard, I must acknowledge the constraints (especially) of time and the normal limitations of space, which mitigates any hopes I may have had originally of providing a “comprehensive” overview of the field of studies on Philemon. With these constraints acknowledged and kept in mind, I will proceed in the following manner:

1. I will divide the examination of the reading traditions into three broad overviews—from the early church to the Reformation (beginnings to sixteenth centur...

Table of contents

• Contributors
• Introduction: Paul’s Relevance Today
• 1.
• 2. Utility, Fraternity, and Reconciliation: 
Ancient Slavery as a Context for the Return of Onesimus
• 3. Nat Is Back: The Return of the Re/Oppressed in Philemon
• 4. Onesimus Speaks: Diagnosing the Hys/Terror of the Text
• 5. “Ain’t You Marster?”: Interrogating Slavery and Gender 
in Philemon
• 6. Enslaved by the Text: The Uses of Philemon
• 7. “Brother Saul”: An Ambivalent Witness to Freedom
• Conclusion
• Notes
• Index