Philemon

I have a small ambition to figure out the letter to Philemon. Why? Because it's short (I told you it was a small ambition). Seriously, I've come across what I think is a major interpretive issue in the letter. Few of my colleagues are discussing it, however, so another small ambition is to bring it up all the time.

Philemon is one of the shortest letters in the New Testament; we have no background in the NT on any of the prominent people mentioned other than Paul. Yet we all have heard the interpretation that Onesimus is a runaway slave belonging to Philemon. Supporters of slavery in the U.S. called the text "the Pauline Mandate" and used it to justify the institution. But NT scholar Allen Callahan argues that Philemon and Onesimus were estranged brothers, not master and slave. It all turns on verse 16, where Paul refers to Onesimus both as a slave (maybe) and as Philemon's physical brother (maybe): ουκετι ως δουλον αλλ υπερ δουλον αδελφον αγαπητον μαλιστα εμοι ποσω δε μαλλον σοι και εν σαρκι και εν κυριω. (NASB) "no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord." (Thanks to biblegateway for the texts).

Slave and Brother. Which one is the metaphor?

The runaway slave interpretation is so universal for us that most people don't even realize that "brother ... in the flesh" is in the text. The NIV translates the verse with the presumption of the runaway slave story as a "hermeneutical grid," if you will. Callahan argues that this interpretation isn't any older than John Chrysostom (347-407).

I don't know if the argument can be resolved on linguistic grounds, but I plan to study the use of ως "as" in the Greek New Testament to determine what sort of contexts it's used in. It may shed light on to what extent it tends to be used in the "counter-factual" sense that Callahan argues. More crucial to resolving the issue is probably research into the history of interpretation within the church.