Abstract
Onesimus has so far remained a colonized or marginalized other in the text and history of reception across historical and cultural constraints. In contrast to this colonizing strategy of reading, the thesis of this paper is that Onesimus, as a minor character, plays a major role in liberating himself from the bondage of slavery’s hierarchical structures within the context of Roman imperial rule. There is a commonly held consensus among most, though not all, Western interpreters that Philemon is the letter to Philemon written by Paul on behalf of Onesimus as the other who is marginalized. That is, a “reading for” Onesimus as the other is ultimately doomed to a reading of marginalizing Onesimus as the colonized other. Ironically, such a “reading for” Onesimus has looked down on his agency in the process of interpretation in the fullest sense. Rather, my reading leans towards a “reading with” Onesimus as a subversive character to regain his long-suppressed voice. Toward this end, I propose reading the letter to Philemon from the marginalized perspective of Onesimus rather than from the central perspective of Paul or Philemon. To do so, I first foreground a postcolonial reading strategy as a critical angle of inquiry alongside narrative and deconstructive criticisms. I then reconstruct Onesimus in terms of plot and characterization through a postcolonial lens. Finally, I deconstruct the hierarchy of social structures inherent in the story of Philemon through a postcolonial optic.
Introduction
In opposition to the widespread scholarly tendency to understand Onesimus as a marginal character, the present study aims to bring attention to him as a central character in Paul’s letter to Philemon: Onesimus plays a major role in liberating himself from the bondage of slavery’s hierarchical structures within the context of Roman imperial rule. There is a commonly held consensus among most, though not all, Western interpreters that Philemon is the letter to Philemon written by Paul on behalf of an other such as Onesimus, the one who is marginalized. 1 It is ironic that such a “reading for” Onesimus has looked down on the presence of Onesimus and his voice in the process of interpretation in the fullest sense, on the grounds that he is a minor figure in Philemon. 2 Instead, the so-called “reading for” Onesimus concentrates on the interplay between the two main figures, Paul and Philemon. The main reason for this is perhaps the fact that Western interpretations have a tendency to ignore the agency of Onesimus and to suppress his voice as well. As Daniel Patte aptly argues, a type of “reading for” the other(s) may run the risk of removing agency from them: “this is a typical colonialist attitude that silences the ‘others,’ stripping from them their dignity as persons, denying any value to their culture, and depriving them of their personal and communal identity.” 3 Paradoxically, a “reading for” Onesimus as the other is ultimately doomed to a reading of marginalizing Onesimus as the colonized other. 4 In the face of this problematic otherness, my reading leans towards “reading with” Onesimus, the one who destabilizes and subverts the hierarchy of social structures under Roman imperial rule in such a way as to serve as a demarginalizing margin. 5
A new understanding of the otherness of Onesimus leads me to read the letter to Philemon from the margins. By this, I mean a reading from the marginalized perspective of Onesimus rather than from the central perspective of Paul and/or Philemon. 6 In doing so, the voice of the subaltern subject, Onesimus, would and should ring in the ears of the reader. At the same time, however, we must acknowledge that the letter to Philemon is written from the point of view of a master rather than from the point of view of a slave, even though it is a letter about Onesimus. What is worse, the voice of Onesimus (and, by implication, the voice of Philemon) is all but overridden and silenced by the domineering voice of Paul. 7 The point to be recognized here is that the suppressed voice of Onesimus still lingers in the letter to Philemon. As Mikhail Bakhtin might put it, the letter to Philemon is a double-voiced discourse in that it conceals the coexistence of—or, more precisely, conflict between—the voice of Paul and the voice of Onesimus. 8 To illustrate, any discourse under uneven relations of power ultimately turns out to be double-voiced in that it fundamentally involves two conflicting voices, that is, both dominant voice and its counter-voice. 9 At the same time, it should be kept in mind that the voice of Paul is public and dominant, whereas the voice of Onesimus is hidden and dominated. 10 If this is the case, a closer reading of Philemon would and should unearth the hidden and dominated voice of Onesimus, as well as the public and dominant voice of Paul. 11
To do so, I provide an interpretive framework to regain the suppressed voice of Onesimus at the literary and ideological level: a postcolonial reading strategy respectively combined with narrative criticism and deconstructive criticism. 12 It should be remembered that the negative representation of Onesimus across historical and cultural constraints touches on both literary and ideological dimensions at the same time. Central to the task at hand is, therefore, an analysis of the narrative world of Philemon and its hierarchical structures through the postcolonial optic designed to read the letter from the margins. 13 In what follows, I first re-envision Onesimus in terms of plot and characterization in a postcolonial light. To illustrate, I reconstruct the plot from the narrative world of the letter, especially from the perspective of Onesimus rather than Paul or Philemon. 14 From the same perspective, I also recharacterize Onesimus in relation to Paul and Philemon. Second, I set out to perform a deconstructive reading of the hierarchy of social structures inherent in the story of Philemon through a postcolonial optic as well. 15 In the process, I assess how the otherness of Onesimus can be re-envisioned when read from the periphery.
Narrativizing Philemon through a postcolonial optic
Emplotting the narrative of Philemon in the eyes of Onesimus
I seek to paint a different picture of Onesimus in terms of plot and characterization in the letter to Philemon. There is no doubt that there is a colonial tendency to marginalize Onesimus in the process of emplotting a story from the letter and characterizing him. First of all, let us consider for a moment the issue of reconstructing the plot from the letter. In his book Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul’s Narrative World, Norman R. Petersen casts fresh insight into how to emplot a narrative from the letter to Philemon. Petersen sets out to convert the letter to Philemon into a story on the assumption that the reader may construct the narrative world of Paul on the basis of the story converted from the letter. To put it in other words, the reader, consciously or unconsciously, changes non-narratives—for instance, letters—into narratives for the sake of comprehension. Petersen further converts the poetic sequence of the events as presented in the letter into the referential sequence of the events so as to rearrange the events extracted from the letter in chronological order. 16 The point to be acknowledged here is that Petersen introduces narrative criticism to the study of Paul’s letters. In doing so, he takes a closer look at the letter with an eye to analyzing its narrative design, particularly its plot.
Insightful as his work may be, it still remains problematic in so far as he reads the letter from the central point of view of Paul. To illustrate, Petersen construes the narrative as beginning and ending with Paul’s actions (that is, Paul’s imprisonment [v. 9] and his visit to Philemon [v. 22]). From this I can infer that Petersen views Paul at the center of the whole plot of the letter. This means that Petersen employs the narrative from the perspective of Paul. 17 But at the same time, a plot can be created from any character’s perspective, for instance, from the perspective of Onesimus. It is notable that the narrative begins and ends with Onesimus’ actions (that is, his separation from Philemon [v. 15] and his return to him [v. 12]). That is to say, Onesimus can be regarded as the center of the whole narrative. The point here is that on the part of Onesimus, the first emplotting is a colonizing reading, whereas the second is a decolonizing reading. Through a postcolonial lens, the letter has driven me to outline the plot with a focus on Onesimus rather than Paul.
Now I can briefly reconstruct the narrative from the letter as follows. 18 Onesimus the slave is separated from the house of his master, Philemon (v. 15). It is suggested in verse 10 that Onesimus is converted by the imprisoned Paul. Paul hears about Philemon’s love and faith with joy and encouragement (vv. 4–7). Onesimus returns to Philemon with the letter by Paul, which anticipates Paul’s visit to Philemon (v. 21–22). Undoubtedly, Onesimus, in marked contrast to Philemon and Paul, is the most dynamic character to advance the story line. For example, the very fact that Onesimus encounters Paul in prison suggests that Onesimus takes initiative throughout the whole narrative. 19 As Jeremy Punt aptly argues, the entire narrative situation develops as Onesimus discreetly pleads to Paul. 20 Such a postcolonial reading invites the reader to understand Onesimus as a central character who drives the overall story. Consequently, this scenario helps characterize Onesimus as an active and creative agent in the world of the narrative of Philemon.
Characterizing Onesimus in relationship with Philemon and Paul
With this postcolonial framework in mind, I can attempt to characterize Onesimus in relation to Philemon and Paul. Prior to the analysis of the characters in the narrative reconstructed from the letter, I would like to state my assumptions about characterization theory in brief: first and foremost, narrative forms, performs, and transforms characterization, a presentation of a character’ traits, in dynamic terms; second, but perhaps equally importantly, characterization is a dialogical process in the ongoing interaction between characters. 21 Making these assumptions will lead to characterizing Onesimus in relationship with Philemon and Paul in a fresh manner. Another point to be recognized is that the narrative reconstructed from the letter contains only indirect characterization revealed by actions, speech and/or thoughts. For the sake of convenience, I will partition the process of characterization into three different categories, according to the unfolding of the plot: characterization in the bilateral relationship between Onesimus and Philemon; characterization in the bilateral relationship between Onesimus and Paul; characterization in the trilateral relationship between Onesimus, Philemon, and Paul.
First, let us consider the process of characterization in the bilateral relationship between Onesimus and Philemon. In verse 16, Onesimus is portrayed as a slave of his master, Philemon. Despite a controversy over whether Onesimus is a runaway slave or a non-runaway slave, a point that must be acknowledged here is that the letter by no means states that Onesimus runs away from his master. 22 Instead, the letter merely describes Onesimus as separated (ἐχωρίσθη), possibly from his master (v. 15). 23 Yet, the letter implies that Onesimus might wrong Philemon or be indebted to him (v. 18). 24 On the contrary, it presents Philemon as fairly well-to-do; he can own a house which can host the local congregation (v. 2) and to offer a guest room for Paul (v. 22). It also depicts him as well respected among the local Christians due to his ability to refresh their hearts (v. 7). Taken together, we can present Onesimus as a slave who is separated (perhaps from the master), possibly because he might do wrong or incur (financial) debt to his master who is portrayed as a rich and respected man in the local congregation.
Second, we will examine the process of characterization in the bilateral relationship between Onesimus and Paul during their imprisonment. The letter presents the relationship between Paul and Onesimus as one of father and child (v. 10): “I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment” (παρακαλ σɛ πɛρὶ το ἐμο τέκνου ν ἐγέννησα ἐν τοίς δɛσμοίς 'Oνήσιμον). This is to say that the verse presents Paul as the one who begets Onesimus and, conversely, Onesimus as his child. What is interesting is that the letter refers to the relationship between Paul and Onesimus as the process of birthing, wherein Paul and Onesimus would correspond to father and child, respectively. It is contextually suggested that Onesimus has converted to the Christian faith through the instrumentality of Paul. 25 Therefore, we can present Onesimus as the begotten son of begetter Paul and by way of Onesimus’ conversion to a burgeoning Christianity.
Finally, but perhaps most importantly, let us look at the composite process of characterization in the trilateral relationship between Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus, with the above-mentioned characterization in mind. To begin with, Paul presents himself within the letter as “an elderly man” (πρɛσβύτης) and “a prisoner of Christ Jesus” (δέσμιος Χριστο ’lησο) in connection with Philemon (v. 9; cf. v. 1). 26 It appears that these self-descriptions of Paul express his humility. At the same time, Paul describes Philemon as “beloved fellow worker” (τ ἀγαπητ καὶ συνɛργ) (v.1). The Greek word συνɛργός hints at the mutual respect between Paul and Philemon. Moreover, the Greek term κοινωνία seems to encapsulate the mutual friendship in the relationship between the two (v. 6). 27 At face value, we can read Paul as an elderly imprisoned man, in relation to Philemon, his beloved co-worker.
Nonetheless, Lloyd A. Lewis contends that this mutuality is embedded within the letter and as a consequence it is stable. However, after Onesimus enters into the relationship between Paul and Philemon, a rift develops to destabilize the community of Philemon. 28 With the presence of Onesimus, the liaison between Paul and Philemon is made all the more complex. For example, the letter presents Onesimus as formerly “useless” (χρηστον) to Philemon, but as presently “useful” (ɛχρηστον) to him and Paul (v. 11). Thus, under the watch of Paul, the slave Onesimus is transformed from a useless servant to a useful servant such that Onesimus entices Paul to stay with him (v. 13). It is suggested that, through Paul’s significant intervention, Onesimus is able to alter the basic relationship between Paul and Philemon.
In this regard, verse 16 is of crucial importance to the correlation between Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus. Here, this trilateral relation is described as fraternal through Paul’s request that Onesimus be taken as a “beloved brother” (ἀδɛλϕǷν ἀγαπητόν) by Philemon with the hyperbolic claim that “especially to me but how much more to you” (μάλιστα ἐμοί πόσῳ δέ μλλον σοὶ). As John Byron argues, verse 16 is the crux of the letter on the grounds that it touches on the transformation of Onesimus’ status from a slave to a brother. 29 Paul denies the validity of Onesimus’ prior status as a slave in association with Philemon (οὐκέτι ς δολον) and he instead constitutes a fraternal relationship between Philemon and Onesimus. In short, a “beloved brother” (ἀδɛλϕǷν ἀγαπητόν) is taken to mean that Paul gives Onesimus the same status as Philemon. 30 At first glance, the relationship between Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus seems likely to be egalitarian.
A closer look, however, provides a different description of the trilateral relationship. Paul establishes a familial structure by casting Philemon as his brother (v. 7) and Onesimus as both his brother and child (vv. 16, 10). It is highly likely that Paul’s parent–child relationship with Onesimus replaces Philemon’s authority over his slave. In other words, Paul has a greater authority over Onesimus than his master. 31 Furthermore, granted that, Philemon owes Paul his own Christian identity, implicitly, through Paul’s evangelization (v. 19). Thus, we can even go so far as to say that Paul becomes a father to both Philemon and Onesimus in verse 10; therefore, they become, in a sense, brothers and children of the apostle Paul. Interestingly enough, Paul, in verse 17, demands Philemon to welcome Onesimus, who is referred to as “his very own heart” (τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα) by Paul (v. 12); here, Paul attempts to grant his status to Onesimus. The letter presents Onesimus as the representative or agent of the apostle himself (v. 17). 32 Chris Frilingos aptly notes, “If Philemon accepts Onesimus in accordance with the apostle’s terms, then the slaveholder must acknowledge Paul’s authoritative presence in his family affairs. Onesimus will remain ‘forever’ in Philemon’s household as a sign of Paul’s domestic power.” 33 The letter ends with the announcement of “apostolic parousia”: “One thing more—prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping through your prayers to be restored to you” (v. 22). This broadcast serves to remind Philemon of Paul’s authority over him and the letter’s audience (cf. ὑμν, the second-person plural pronoun). By and large, we can present the trilateral relationship between Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus as fraternal or egalitarian. At the same time, however, it can be described in hierarchical terms: Paul and Onesimus can be respectively labeled as the authoritative apostle and a representative of his power in the household of Philemon, whose authority is harmed and damaged.
We must now reconsider the characterization of Onesimus from his marginalized perspective. For the sake of better understanding, let us look carefully at Punt’s postcolonial reading. As the subtitle suggests, Punt, in his essay “Paul, Power and Philemon. ‘Knowing Your Place’: A Postcolonial Reading” adamantly advocates a postcolonial reading of the letter to Philemon. Yet his postcolonial reading turns out to be somewhat limited by his conclusion that Onesimus became both more (brother) and less (brother of his owner); and Philemon both retained his status (slave-owner) and lost it (patron of Paul, but also having his own slave as a brother); while Paul’s status only increased (in terms of expanding patronage), and was moderated only to some extent by his relationship to Jesus Christ. While Paul’s challenge was aimed at Philemon’s authority and his position as the owner of Onesimus, Onesimus’ voice remains silent throughout Phlm, although he took the initiative that led to the writing of the letter.
34
Even so, a more radical postcolonial enterprise would lead to the recovery of the marginalized voice of Onesimus. I believe that there is ample room for reading the letter from the marginalized perspective of Onesimus, but only if we can paint a different picture of resistance. I understand the resistance of Onesimus in terms of tact. Note that tact is a creative mode to interact and negotiate with the loopholes of social conventions and norms. 35 As a matter of fact, tact is a local, rather than global, resistance. It takes place within a specific context in such a way as to make use of the advantages of those weaker against those stronger. Drawing on the notion of tact, I can present Onesimus as a creative agent who tactfully resists the local power of the slaveholder Philemon by borrowing power from the authority of Paul. Contra Punt, I hold that Onesimus cajoles Paul into intervening with his master Philemon, in the interests of Onesimus’ position. As noted above, it is apparent that, after his encounter with Paul, Onesimus discreetly transforms himself from a ‘useless’ (χρηστος) servant to a ‘useful’ (ɛχρηστος) one (v.11). Remember that the transformation of Onesimus is so marvelous that Paul even describes him as “his very own heart” (v. 12). It can be said that Onesimus takes the initiative to convince Paul to engage in his relationship with Philemon. When read from the margins, Paul—as an agent of Onesimus, but not vice versa—urges Philemon to take him “no longer as a slave” but as a “beloved brother,” eventually putting in jeopardy the local power of Philemon as a slave master (v. 16). Through a postcolonial lens, I can thus portray Onesimus as a tactful character, able to maneuver the power relations between Paul and Philemon in order to undermine the authority of his master and, by implication, the imperial rule reflected in the system of slavery. Onesimus’ negotiations with asymmetric relations of power push me to reexamine the power structures themselves as embedded in the letter.
Deconstructing social structures through a postcolonial optic
Through a postcolonial lens, I will undertake to destabilize and deconstruct the hierarchy of social structures embedded in the letter. Let me start this analysis by addressing the limitations of Petersen’s approach to (anti-)social structures. Drawing on the anthropological theory of Victor Turner, Petersen analyzes social structures as divided into two substructures—the structures of the world and the anti-structures of the church, in antithetical terms. 36 He also mentions that the anti-structures of the church develop their internal substructures through two dimensions, structural and anti-structural. 37 Despite his detailed explanation about the social configuration of Pauline churches, Petersen leaves the following problems unresolved: such a structural approach considers social structures based on binary oppositions as static; and, it does not touch on the asymmetry of social structures within the imperial-colonial framework. The point to be observed here is that the agency of Onesimus cannot be fully restored until we can resolve these problems. To this end, a postcolonial reading goes hand in hand with deconstructive criticism.
From a postcolonial perspective, the relationship between Paul and Onesimus can be constructed as that between the colonizer and the colonized. When it comes to the process of Christianization, conversion can be seen as a colonization process in the sense that it reproduces the dominator and the dominated in terms of power dynamics. To further illustrate, I first draw on Homi Bhabha’s postcolonial theories of the following concepts: mimicry, ambivalence, and hybridity. 38 I then attempt to exercise a deconstructive reading along with the inferences gained from my postcolonial reading.
The first point to bear in mind is that the colonized are forced to mimic the colonizer, albeit in a fragmentary manner: “almost the same, but not quite.”
39
Through mimicry, the familial metaphor focused on a father–son relationship establishes colonial authority in the relationship between Paul and Onesimus. In the story of Philemon, it is suggested in verse 10 that Paul demonstrates his authority over Onesimus as his begotten son. Given a hierarchical structure within the patriarchal context of the first-century Mediterranean world, it is also implied that Onesimus is supposed to imitate Paul as his begetting father. Joseph H. Hellerman states that Imitation of the behavior of one’s father is, of course, a cross-cultural family value and is hardly unique to Paul’s society. The value is particularly emphasized, however, in cultures that take a conservative approach to social change and exhibit descent group kinship systems, such as the world of Mediterranean antiquity. In contrast to contemporary American practices, the ideal son in the ancient world was typically expected to adopt his father’s general lifestyle, including, among other things, his father’s religious orientation, means of livelihood, and place of residence.
40
The second point is that such partial mimicry yields ambivalence to colonial identity in both ways. In other words, the ongoing interaction between colonizer and colonized, facilitated by mimicry, brings to light the uncertainty of colonial identity switching back and forth between original and copy. 41 On the one hand, such colonizers as Paul and Philemon maintain a vacillating identity for Onesimus. First, Paul can be seen as both a father and, by implication, a brother. Second, Philemon can be seen as both a master and a brother. On the other hand, Onesimus as the colonized also keeps his doubled identity for Paul and Philemon; Onesimus can be considered both as a slave and a brother for Philemon, and as a slave and a son for Paul, respectively. Here, it should be emphasized that Onesimus generates ambivalence in a colonial context due to his new identity as a brother in a Christian community.
As such, colonial ambivalence undermines colonial authority operative in the trilateral relationship between Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus. As mentioned above, this relationship becomes increasingly fraternal due to Onesimus’ mimicry. For the present, the text hints at the anxiety of Philemon about Onesimus, as his social status is altered from a slave to a brother. One can go so far as to say that Paul would also be inevitably apprehensive about the hideous image that Onesimus may reflect through becoming his spiritual brother as well as father. As a matter of fact, the ambivalence caused by mimicry may serve to destabilize, rather than stabilize, colonial identity in the long run.
The third point to be acknowledged is that colonial ambivalence obscures the clear-cut boundary between colonizer and colonized, thereby engendering hybridity, a liminal space traversing the divisions between colonizer and colonized. 42 As a result, hybridity empowers the colonized to subvert the dominance of the colonizer in a blurred zone between colonizer and colonized. With this in mind, the Pauline Christian community, as Paul envisions it, can be constructed as a hybrid space, since it is a mixture of Jews and Gentiles, masters and slaves and males and females (cf. Gal 3:28). What is more, such an in-between space generates a new series of representations (e.g., apostle–gentile, master–slave, debtee–debtor, father–child, brother–sister etc.) for Paul, Philemon, Onesimus, and, by expansion, the letter’s recipients. As a consequence, both colonizer and colonized can cross over and further weaken social, cultural, economic, and gender boundaries. In addition, structures themselves—whether they be the social structures of the world or the anti-social structures of the church—are likely to be challenged, or even undermined, given the weakening or collapse of the boundaries that espouse both structures and anti-structures. 43
Through a combined lens of postcolonialism and deconstruction, the result of Onesimus’ mimicry is that the boundaries as narrated in the letter can no longer remain clear-cut, but rather become blurred in the hybrid space created. Among other things, the boundary between colonizer and colonized is changeable and in constant flux. For example, Paul can be presented as both colonizer and colonized, given his status as an apostle and a prisoner in the context of the earliest Christian community and Roman imperial rule, respectively. By the same token, Philemon takes on this dual identity as a colonizing and colonized subject in relationship with the slave Onesimus and the apostle Paul. This is to say that the seemingly clear boundary in the letter turns out so illusory that it becomes porous. I would even go further in arguing that there is no such thing as a center through which to organize social systems. Thus, the hybrid, Pauline Christian community initiated by Onesimus’ mimicry is transformed into a space of resistance that obfuscates the constructed dichotomy of colonizer and colonized. Consider, for instance, the tactful position of Onesimus to subvert the colonizing power of his master, Philemon, by causing ambivalence to him as both a master and a brother through his mimicry of the apostolic Paul. In doing so, we can find Onesimus himself becoming a demarginalizing margin that deconstructs the fundamental dichotomy between center and margin.
Concluding remarks
My contention is that Onesimus, as a minor character in the narrative world of Philemon, plays a major role in subverting the hierarchy of unjust social structures, particularly the system of slavery within the Roman imperial context. I have attempted to recover Onesimus’ marginalized voice against Western interpretations that have sought to otherize him. Facing the problematic of otherness as such, a postcolonial reading strategy, along with narrative-critical and deconstructive criticisms, leads me to reread Onesimus from the margins. Onesimus may be read as one who tactfully destabilizes and resists the hierarchy of social structures under Roman imperial rule, while serving as a demarginalizing margin. As a consequence, Onesimus can be liberated from the imperial, colonial powers through his negotiating tact of mimicking the apostle Paul in order to resist his master, Philemon, and, by implication, Roman imperial order. Needless to say, it would be incumbent on postcolonial critics to render as both visible and audible the marginalized, minor characters in biblical narratives, so that we can restore their spirit of liberation and resistance.
Footnotes
Funding
This work was supported by the Research Resettlement Fund for the New Faculty of Yonsei University (2016).
1
Cf. Allen Dwight Callahan, “The Letter to Philemon,” in A Postcolonial Commentary on the New Testament Writings, eds., Fernando F. Segovia and R. S. Sugirtharajah (London: T & T Clark, 2007), 330. See also Demetrius K. Williams, “‘No Longer as a Slave’: Reading the Interpretation History of Paul’s Epistle to Philemon,” in Onesimus Our Brother: Reading Religion, Race, and Culture in Philemon, eds., Matthew V. Johnson, James A. Noel, and Demetrius K. Williams (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 11–45. On ancient slavery, see also M. I. Finley, Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology (New York: Viking, 1980); Jennifer A. Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity (New York: Oxford, 2002). The first and foremost point to recall is that Onesimus has so far been marginalized in the text and history of reception across historical and cultural constraints. Allen Dwight Callahan aptly argues that there is a colonizing legacy in the Wirkungsgeschichte (or reception history) of the biblical text. To illustrate, Paul’s comment that he might have supposedly wronged Philemon may create a stereotyped idea of Onesimus as a thief at the textual level (v. 18). Importantly, there was a prevalent stereotyping about a slave’s theft in the first-century eastern Mediterranean context. In a similar vein, the fourth-century preacher John Chrysostom in Antioch advocated a pro-slavery interpretation based on the image of Onesimus as a runaway slave in his Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to Philemon. In this connection, the white settlers in the colony sought to build up such a pro-slavery interpretation under British colonialism. Thus, Onesimus has traditionally been the colonized other, a (social, cultural, economic, and racial/ethnic) victim to the system of slavery, a significant power relation of production of Western imperialism and colonialism. Throughout history, Onesimus has so far played the role of the colonized other on the part of the geopolitical West throughout the ages.
2
On the distinction between reading “for” and reading “with” others, see Daniel Patte and Teresa Okure, eds., Global Bible Commentary (Nashville: Abingdon, 2004), xxix–xxxii.
3
Ibid., xxiv. On the representation of the subalterns, see Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, eds., Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1988).
4
On the mechanism of othering in modern imperialism and colonialism, see Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage, 1994). Drawing on Michel Foucault’s understanding of discourse as systems of constructing knowledge in interactions with power relations, Said highlighted the strategies of the geopolitical West in subjugating the Orient through discourse. To be more specific, the West, or the European world, attempts to construct its identity in stark contrast to the negative images of the Orient, or the Arab world. Simply put, the West attempts to define itself by excluding or othering the Orient.
5
On the dynamics of the self and other in a colonial context, see Sung Uk Lim, “The Myth of Origin in Context through the Lens of Deconstruction, Dialogism, and Hybridity,” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 10.29 (2011): 112–131. Contrary to the colonialist habit of giving the epithet of the marginalized “other” to the colonized, I define the colonized as the marginalized self while seeing the colonizer as the centralized other. I even go so far as to say that the colonized can regain their agency by demarginalizing, or more precisely, recentralizing the marginalized self. Thus, I adamantly state, “the colonized can start to become the ‘reborn’ selves, which centralize the ‘marginalized selves’ and marginalize the ‘centralized others’ as the colonizer simultaneously; the colonized are, in the end, transformed into the ‘reborn’ centralized selves vis-à-vis the recalcitrant colonizers still claiming to be the centralized selves” (121).
6
On the structural binomial of empire, see Fernando F. Segovia, Decolonizing Biblical Studies: A View from the Margins (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000), 119–32, esp. 28–29. Segovia notes, “In effect, there is always-sooner or later, major or minor, explicit or implicit-resistance to the center on the part of the politically economically, culturally, and religiously subordinated margins, even when such resistance brings about, as it inevitably does, further measures of control on the part of the center, designed to instill fear into the minds and hearts of the margins. Such measures, to be sure, only serve to contribute to a further deconstruction of the binomial reality, as the civilized, advanced, cultured, progressive, developed, and believing center turns increasingly to measures of an uncivilized, primitive, barbarian, backward, undeveloped, and unbelieving order against the marginal groups” (129).
7
Jeremy Punt, “Paul, Power and Philemon. ‘Knowing Your Place’: A Postcolonial Reading,” in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter, eds., D. F. Tolmie and Alfred Friedl (New York: de Gruyter, 2010), 236.
8
M. M. Bakhtin and Caryl Emerson, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, Theory and History of Literature (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1984), 184. See also Sung Uk Lim, “A Double-Voiced Reading of Romans 13:1–7 in Light of the Imperial Cult,” HTS 71.1 (2015): 1–10.
9
Lim, “The Myth of Origin in Context through the Lens of Deconstruction, Dialogism, and Hybridity,” 119–20.
10
Cf. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven: Yale, 1990), ix–xiii.
11
On this account, I offer a hermeneutical lens through which to let Onesimus himself speak. At this point, I should like to use a hermeneutics of otherness and recovery in such a way as to respect the otherness of the others and recuperate their suppressed voices. Cf. Fernando F. Segovia, “Toward a Hermeneutics of the Diaspora: A Hermeneutics of Otherness and Engagement,” in Reading from This Place, Vol 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 58–59.
12
It is worthwhile to notice that a postcolonial reading as a critical angle of inquiry is, by nature, so interdisciplinary that it can accommodate a variety of criticisms and approaches. On this, see Fernando F. Segovia, “Mapping the Postcolonial Optic in Biblical Criticism: Meaning and Scope,” in Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections, eds., Stephen D. Moore and Fernando F. Segovia (New York: T & T Clark, 2005), 24. See also R. S. Sugirtharajah, “A Postcolonial Exploration of Collusion and Construction in Biblical Interpretation,” in The Postcolonial Bible ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 93. Following R. S. Sugirtharajah, one can construe a postcolonial reading as “a mental attitude rather than a method, more a subversive stance towards the dominant knowledge than a school of thought.”
13
“Biblical Criticism and Postcolonial Studies,” in The Postcolonial Bible, ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 52.
14
Norman R. Petersen, Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul’s Narrative World (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 43. On narrative studies of the Pauline letters, see Stephen E. Fowl, The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul: An Analysis of the Function of the Hymnic Material in the Pauline Corpus, Journal for the Study of the New Testament (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990); Ben Witherington, Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994); A. Katherine Grieb, The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God’s Righteousness (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002); Bruce W. Longenecker, Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002); Abson Prédestin Joseph, A Narratological Reading of 1 Peter, Library of New Testament Studies (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2012).
15
On this, see Petersen, Rediscovering Paul, 17. Petersen goes so far as to delve into the social world of Paul’s narratives by utilizing social anthropology and the sociology of knowledge, turning our attention to the “structures of social relations” and the “world of meanings.” Applying a sociological approach to Paul’s narrative world, Petersen outlines the worldly realm (e.g., master and slave) and the churchly realm (e.g., fellow worker and partner), according to which he divides the structures of the world and the anti-structures of the church. Petersen further divides the anti-structures of the church between its structures and anti-structures. In the process, he sketches out the social fabric of the world and the church as represented by the narrative of Paul. At the ideological level, Petersen’s sociological approach still leaves much to be explored with special reference to the imperial-colonial power structures. Furthermore, this task entails an analytical framework to see the power dynamics between Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus in a more nuanced manner than Petersen has provided. This leads to a new approach to wrestling with the asymmetric power relations between the characters of Philemon, therefore challenging the social structure and its hierarchy. In this vein, deconstructive criticism offers an alternative to the sociological approach in exploring social structures, whether hierarchical or egalitarian. Clearly, deconstruction is a groundbreaking attempt to imagine beyond oppositional and hierarchical categories by pinpointing the porous nature of dualistic boundaries. Drawing on the deconstructive enterprise, I am in a position to break down the hierarchy of social structures as presented in the letter to Philemon. On deconstructive biblical interpretation, cf. Stephen D. Moore, “Deconstructive Criticism: Turning Mark Inside-Out,” in Mark & Method, eds., Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 95–110.
16
Petersen, Rediscovering Paul, 43–88, esp. 65–78.
17
In spite of the methodological contribution of Petersen to the study of Paul’s letters, I find his literary approach somewhat flawed. This is especially because I consider the proposed agenda of the decolonization of Onesimus. At the literary level, I charge Petersen’s narrative criticism with the process of emplotting from the perspective of Paul and the lack of analysis of characters and characterization. On the one hand, Petersen attempts to reconstruct the narrative of Philemon, centering around Paul’s actions rather than Onesimus’. More specifically, Petersen begins and ends the narrative with Paul’s imprisonment (v. 9) and his visit to Philemon, respectively. Simply put, Paul, for Petersen, becomes the center of the narrative of Philemon in its entirety, with the result that Onesimus becomes marginalized in such a narrative. In opposition to Petersen’s emplotting from the perspective of Paul, I would rather restructure the narrative from the perspective of Onesimus. On the other hand, Petersen by no means undertakes to elaborate in greater detail the characters of Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus. The issue at hand is that Petersen does not problematize a negative portrait of Onesimus as a character. It is worthwhile to note that Onesimus has been literarily stereotyped in negative terms due to his status as a slave. For this reason, I will pay particular attention to characters and characterization in Philemon by critically engaging with the literary theory of Petersen.
18
Cf. John M. G. Barclay, “Paul, Philemon and the Dilemma of Christian Slave-Ownership,” New Testament Studies 37.2 (1991): 163–65.
19
Punt, “Paul, Power and Philemon. ‘Knowing Your Place,’” 239.
20
Ibid. See also Peter Lampe, “Keine ‘Sklavenflucht’ des Onesimus,” Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren Kirche 76.1–2 (1985): 135–37; Brian M. Rapske, “The Prisoner Paul in the Eyes of Onesimus,” New Testament Studies 37.2 (1991): 187–203. The point to be observed from the concept of amicus domini as advocated by Peter Lampe and developed by Brian M. Rapske is that it is purposeful for Onesimus to be separated from Philemon and to return to him in the expectation of being restored to his master, Philemon, through the intervention of his friend, Paul. This assumption reveals the fact that Onesimus is the central character to unfold the plot gradually.
21
On narrative identity, see Paul Ricœur, Oneself as Another (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1992); Robert C. Tannehill, “The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology,” Semeia 16 (1979): 57–95. On performativity of identity, see also Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1990). On dialogism, Cf. Michael Holquist, Dialogism: Bakhtin and His World (New York: Routledge, 2002), 17–21.
22
Sara C. Winter, “Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” New Testament Studies 33.1 (1987): 1–15.
23
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Letter to Philemon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 1st edn. (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 112. Here, the Greek verb χωρίζɛιν does not imply that Onesimus fled away. Instead, it simply means that Onesimus was parted. It is the Vulgate that adds to the Greek verb the Latin phrase a te (“from you”), which supports the so-called run-away hypothesis that Onesimus was a runaway slave. However, I am in a position to oppose this hypothesis in accordance with the original Greek expression.
24
Punt, “Paul, Power and Philemon. ‘Knowing Your Place,’” 238. According to Punt, this is a type of stereotyping about the slave Onesimus, which may function to otherize him in the eyes of the reader.
25
Fitzmyer, The Letter to Philemon, 107.
26
Scott S. Elliott, “‘Thanks, but No Thanks’: Tact, Persuasion, and the Negotiation of Power in Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” New Testament Studies 57.1 (2011): 58. Elliott opines that Paul’s introduction of himself as “elder” (πρɛσβύτης) and “prisoner” (δέσμιος) serves as feigned humbleness instead to stress his authority elsewhere.
27
John M. G. Barclay, “Paul, Philemon and the Dilemma of Christian Slave-Ownership,” New Testament Studies 37.2 (1991): 182.
28
Lloyd A. Lewis, “An African American Appraisal of the Paul–Onesimus–Philemon Triangle,” in Stony the Road We Trod: African American Biblical Interpretation, ed. Cain Hope Felder (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 245.
29
John Byron, “The Epistle to Philemon: Paul’s Strategy for Forging the Ties of Kinship,” in Jesus and Paul: Global Perspectives in Honor of James D.G. Dunn for His 70th Birthday, eds., James D. G. Dunn et al. (New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 216.
30
Christopher A. Frilingos, “‘For My Child, Onesimus’: Paul and Domestic Power in Philemon,” Journal of Biblical Literature 119.1 (2000): 92. In the view of Frilingos, the letter to Philemon is imbued with kinship imagery such that these metaphors describe Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus as consanguine. Although Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus seem to, momentarily, be equals as brothers, Paul’s hyperbole—“especially to me but how much more to you”—seems more likely to alienate him from the possibility of an egalitarian relationship with Philemon and Onesimus. The reason may be that Paul as the authoritative paterfamilias looks upon Philemon and Onesimus as his children as well as brothers.
31
Ibid., 100. Frilingos thus notes, “the letter invites a relationship that places the apostle and the household paterfamilias on an equal footing.” In his view, the letter’s household metaphor establishes a strategy for challenging the authority of Philemon and his claim to his slave, Onesimus. The final result is that the family metaphor in the letter places Paul’s authority over both Philemon and Onesimus.
32
Ibid., 101.
33
Ibid., 104.
34
Punt, “Paul, Power and Philemon. ‘Knowing Your Place,’” 246.
35
On this, see Elliott, “Thanks, but No Thanks.” Elliott understands that the letter, as a tactful discourse, engages in Paul’s power negotiations with the addressee, Philemon. To take a step further, I argue that it is Onesimus who tactfully uses the authority of Paul to ensure his stance toward his master, Philemon.
36
Petersen, Rediscovering Paul, 151–99.
37
Following Turner, Petersen divides social relations into two modes, structural and anti-structural. Simply put, the structural mode of social relations refers to hierarchical relations, whereas the anti-structural mode indicates anti-hierarchical or reversed relations. Cf. Victor W. Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure, The Lewis Henry Morgan Lectures (Chicago: Aldine, 1969).
38
Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture, Routledge Classics (New York: Routledge, 2004). See also, Lim, “The Myth of Origin in Context through the Lens of Deconstruction, Dialogism, and Hybridity,” 121–23.
39
Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 128.
40
Joseph H. Hellerman, The Ancient Church as Family (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 102.
41
Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 153.
42
Ibid., 55.
43
On the structure and anti-structure of Philemon, see Petersen, Rediscovering Paul, 163–70.