Abstract
This article draws attention to a neglected extrabiblical use of the verb προσλαμβάνω in a documentary text, a Jewish deed of marriage from the early second century CE (P.Mur. 2.115), and suggests its significance for understanding Paul’s appeal to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus. Προσλαμβάνω is Paul’s first imperative in his letter to Philemon (Phlm. 17), and many commentators understand it as part of a commercial idiom (‘to take as a business partner’), whether literally or metaphorically. It is argued here that such a reading is unlikely given three factors: the newly attested context of προσλαμβάνω, the predominance of kinship language in Philemon, and the underlying theme of reconciliation.
1. Introduction
There are no imperatives in Paul’s appeal to Philemon until v. 17: εἰ οὖν με ἔχεις κοινωνόν, προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐμέ, ‘So, if you consider me your partner, welcome him [Onesimus] as you would welcome me’ (NRSV). 1 As the first overt command in the Apostle’s masterfully crafted intercession for Onesimus, προσλαμβάνω plays a key role within the epistle. English translations typically render the verb in one of three ways: ‘receive’ (KJV, RSV, ESV), ‘welcome’ (NSRV, NIV), or ‘accept’ (NASB, NET). These three English glosses are roughly synonymous, yet at the same time somewhat vague in the context. What exactly did Paul expect Philemon to do for Onesimus?
The purpose of this article is to draw attention to a neglected extrabiblical attestation of the verb προσλαμβάνω in an early Jewish document and to explore its significance for understanding Paul’s appeal. The attestation appears in P.Murabba‘ât 2.115 (P.Mur. 2.115), a contract of (re-)marriage discovered in the Judean Desert, dated shortly after the time of the apostle Paul (124 CE). I argue that this document can and should enrich future discussions of Philemon. My aim is not to advocate for a particular translation of προσλαμβάνω but to demonstrate how P.Mur. 2.115 can both illustrate Paul’s request and at the same time improve our understanding of it.
2. The Use of Προσλαμβάνω
Besides Phlm. 17, Paul uses the word προσλαμβάνω on four occasions, all in Rom. 14.1–15.7. There, Paul exhorts the ‘strong’ in faith to ‘welcome [προσλαμβάνεσθε] those who are weak’ rather than quarrel over opinions (Rom. 14.1). He forbids the strong from despising the weak and the weak from judging the strong, based on the fact that ‘God has welcomed him’: ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτὸν προσελάβετο (Rom. 14.3). At the end of the passage, Paul reiterates, ‘Welcome [προσλαμβάνεσθε] one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed [προσελάβετο] you, for the glory of God’ (Rom. 15.7). For such instances, BDAG suggests the following definition and gloss: ‘to extend a welcome, receive in(to) one’s home or circle of acquaintances’ (BDAG, s.v. προσλαμβάνω, 4). Louw and Nida offer a similar definition, ‘to accept the presence of a person with friendliness’, along with the following glosses: ‘to welcome, to receive, to accept, to have as a guest’ (1989: I, 453). 2
The verb is used similarly once in Acts (Acts 28.2), although it has a few different nuances elsewhere. It can mean ‘take food’ (Acts 27.33, 36), ‘take or bring along with oneself, take along’ (Acts 17.5), and ‘take or lead off to oneself, take aside’ (Mt. 16.22; Mk. 8.32). 3 The few instances of the word in the Greek OT accord with these uses (e.g., 1 Sam. 12.22; 2 Macc. 8.1, 10.15; Pss. 17.17, 26.10, 64.5, 72.24; Wis. 17.11).
Outside of the Greek Bible, the word is used in similar ways, 4 but there is one particular nuance worth noting as it pertains to Philemon. In some documentary papyri προσλαμβάνω bears distinctly commercial and legal connotations, especially when it is paired with κοινωνός, as it nearly is in Phlm. 17. Specifically, on several occasions the words occur together in commercial agreements between two parties, with the sense, ‘to take as a business partner’. For example, P.Amh.Gr. 2.100 (198–211 CE) is a commercial contract in which a certain Hermes agrees to take a fellow named Cornelius as his partner (προσελαβετο τον Κορνηλιον κοινωνον) in the lease of a lake. Similar is P.Oxy. 43.3092 (217 CE), a contract in which two tax farmers agree to take on as partners (προσλαμ[βανεσθαι αὐτου]ς κοινωνους) two other associates and share their tax concession equally. Similar uses appear in P.Col. 10.276 (218–225 CE) and PSI 4.306 (II–III CE).
Readers of Philemon have long noted this commercial idiom in documentary papyri. 5 Moreover, scholars have also seen that it coheres with other commercial terms employed by Paul in this portion of Philemon. Consider that in the following verse Paul states: ‘If he has wronged [ἠδίκησεν] you in any way, or owes [ὀφείλει] you anything, charge [ἐλλόγα] that to my account’ (Phlm. 18). The following verse is similar: ‘I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand: I will repay [ἀποτίσω] it. I say nothing about your owing [προσοϕείλεις] me even your own self’ (Phlm. 19). Paul here is speaking the language of the business world ( C.Martin 1991).
The most thorough analysis of the relevant documentary evidence is given by Peter Arzt-Grabner, who argues in favor of reading προσλαμβάνω as part of the commercial idiom just noted, ‘to take as a business partner’. In addition to examining the instances of this usage cited above, Arzt-Grabner further notes that in the documentary papyri κοινωνός tends to mean ‘business partner’ rather than merely ‘friend’, and that there are numerous examples from antiquity of business partnerships between κοινωνοί ( 2003: 226–34; also 2001, 2010). Paul appears, therefore, to be asking Philemon to make Onesimus his business partner in some sense.
For Arzt-Grabner, the nature of this ‘business’ is first of all metaphorical. Because Paul describes his partnership with Philemon as a κοινωνία of faith (Phlm. 6), Paul evidently intends to include Onesimus as a ‘partner’ in the ‘business’ of Christian fellowship. A few commentators have understood v. 17 in this metaphorical way (e.g., Lohse 1971: 203–4; Stuhlmacher 1981: 49).
Yet a more concrete form of partnership seems to be in view as well. Arzt-Grabner suggests that since the fellowship between these men was not merely spiritual, but also ἐν σαρκί (Phlm. 16), the idiom might suggest both a figurative and a literal sense. That is, Paul appears to ask Philemon to make his slave an actual (and legitimate) business partner and to entrust him with significant responsibility. Given the use of the idiom in contemporary documents, this is likely how the original audience would have understood it ( 2001: 611). There are clear examples in the papyri of masters entrusting their slaves with commercial responsibilities. Nevertheless, due to the lack of clear evidence in its favor, few commentators understand v. 17 to indicate this sort of literal business relationship. 6
Arzt-Grabner suggests an additional alternative, that Paul might have intended for Onesimus to be given ‘business partnership’ in the sense of Christian ministerial leadership. This partnership is more than merely Christian fellowship; just as Philemon had become Paul’s ‘fellow worker’ in gospel ministry (Phlm. 1), so now Onesimus is to be taken on as a ‘partner’ as well. Indeed, elsewhere when referring to Titus, Paul uses the term κοινωνός with this sense: κοινωνὸς ἐμὸς καὶ εἰς ὑμᾶς συνεργός, ‘my partner and co-worker in your service’ (2 Cor. 8.23). Onesimus is to be engaged as a true partner in gospel ministry and entrusted with relevant responsibility. This reading of v. 17 has been and continues to be rather popular among commentators (e.g., Gnilka 1982: 83–84; O’Brien 1982: 299; Bruce 1984: 219; Dunn 1996: 337; Pao 2012: 405–6).
Not everyone sees the relevance of a business partnership idiom. Because both προσλαμβάνω and κοινωνός have wider ranges of signification than the commercial sphere, it is not clear to all that Paul intended it to be understood this way. 7 We have already seen above that προσλαμβάνω is used generally to mean, for example, ‘extend a welcome’ or ‘take along’ both in Paul, the NT, the LXX, and extrabiblical sources. But the same applies also to κοινωνός, which can refer to a variety of relationships—‘companion’, ‘accomplice’, ‘fellow’—both in Paul’s letters and outside the NT. Note, for example, Paul’s use of κοινωνός with the sense of ‘sharer’ or ‘participant’ (1 Cor. 10.18, 20; 2 Cor. 1.7) as well as the similarly wide usage in the LXX and NT (Prov. 28.24; Isa. 1.23; Sir. 6.10; Mal. 2.14; Mt 23.30). In fact, when προσλαμβάνω and κοινωνός are paired together in contemporary Greek literature, they are used generally to mean ‘take an accomplice’ or ‘form a group’, without necessarily implying commercial connotations. 8 Understood in their more general senses, προσλαμβάνω and κοινωνός need not suggest business-related implications, and προσλαμβάνω would here function in a similar manner to its use in Rom. 14–15 and Acts 28.2 with the nontechnical meaning of ‘extend a welcome’.
In short, the documentary papyri have exerted significant influence on the interpretation of Philemon in recent years, with many commentators understanding Paul’s request in v. 17 according to the business idiom found in the commercial contracts. 9 Unfortunately absent from discussion is P.Mur. 2.115, a documentary text that provides a concrete illustration of the meaning of προσλαμβάνω outside of the business world and one that is parallel to Philemon. No doubt this absence is due in part to the fact that P.Mur. 2.115, with its use of προσλαμβάνω, is not cited in either BDAG or LSJ. 10 As I will argue, it is nevertheless relevant to Phlm. 17 and can enrich our understanding of Paul’s appeal.
3. P.Murabba‘ât 2.115
P.Mur. 2.115 is a fragmentary marriage contract written in Greek that was discovered along with many other texts at Wadi Murabba‘ât in the Judean desert. 11 It is internally dated to 124 CE. As a marriage deed, it is distinctive because it records the remarriage of a divorced couple. The bride and groom are a Jewish couple named Elaios (also spelled Eleaios) and Salome. I excerpt here the first six lines of the original edition by P. Benoit (Benoit, Milik, de Vaux 1961: 248–49) followed by my own translation. 12
Ἔτ̣ους ἑβδόμου Αὐτοκρ̣ά[τ]ορος Τραϊανοῦ Ἁδριανοῦ Καίσαρος Σ̣εβαστοῦ ὑ̣[π]α[τευόντω]ν Μανίου Ἀκ[ιλίου Γλ]αβρίωνος καὶ Βελλικίου Τορκουάτου πρὸ ι̅δ̅ κ(αλανδῶν) Νοενβρίων
Δύστρου ι̅ε̅ ἐν Βαιτοβαι̣σσαιας .ι̣ω̣..κ. τ̣ο̣παρχείας Ἡρω̣δεί̣ο̣[υ] ’Ε̣ξομο̣λ̣[ογ]ή̣σα̣[το καὶ σ]υνεγ̣ράψατο ’Ε̣λ̣ε̣α̣ῖ̣ος Σίμωνος τῶν ἀπὸ κ(ώμης) Γαλωδῶν τῆς περὶ Ἀκραβα̣τ̣τῶν
οἰκῶν ἐν κώμῃ Βαιτοα̣ρδοις τῆς περὶ Γοφνοῖς πρὸς [Σα]λ̣ώμην [’Ἰ]ω̣ά[νου Γαλγ]ο̣υ̣λ̣ὰ π̣ρογενομέ[νην] α̣ὐτοῦ Ἐλαίο̣υ̣ σύνβιον Ἐπ<ε>ὶ πρὸ τοῦ συνέβη τῷ αὐτῷ ’Ε̣λ̣α̣ίῳ
Σίμωνος ἀπαλλαγῆναι καὶ ἀπολύειν Σαλώμην Ἰωάνου̣ Γ̣α̣λ̣γουλ̣α̣ τ̣ὴ̣[ν..].[.] κ̣[..]λ̣[….].η̣ναι̣ σ̣[υ]ν̣βιώσεος χάριν νυνεὶ ὁμολογεῖ ὁ αὐτὸς Ἐλαῖος Σίμ̣ω̣[νος]
ἐξ ἀνανεώσεος καταλλάξαι κ[αὶ] π̣ροσλαβέσθαι τὴν αὐ̣τ̣ὴν Σαλώ[μην Ἰω]άν̣[ο]υ Γ̣[αλγο]υ̣λὰ ε̣ἰ̣[ς γυναῖ]κ̣α γαμετὴν σὺν προικὶ ∠̅σ̅ οἵ εἰσιν τύριοι ν̅ ἃ ὡμολό[γη-]
σεν ὁ αὐτὸς Ἐλαῖος Σίμωνος̣ ἠριθμ[ῆσθαι ....] ε.[…]ηλ̣ε.[.].τ.[..]..[.]…[..].[…..]..[..] π[ρογε]γρ̣αμμ[ένα] ∠̣̅σ̣̅ ε̣ἰ̣ς λόγον προικὸς παρὰ Σαλ̣ώμης Ἰωάν̣[ο]υ̣ Γαλγ̣ο̣[υλ]ὰ̣
In the seventh year of the emperor Trajan Hadrian Caesar Augustus, under the consuls Manius Acilius Glabrio and Bellicius Torquatus, before the 14th calends of November,
the 15th of Dystrus, in Bethbassi […] of the toparchy of Herodion. It was acknowledged and agreed by Eleaios (son) of Simon, from the village of Galōda which reports to Aqraba,
living in the village of Betharda which is under Gophna, with regard to Salome (daughter) of John Galgoula, who was previously wife of the same Elaios. Whereas previously it happened to Eliaos
of Simon to separate from and to divorce Salome (daughter) of John Galgoula […] for common cause [?], now the same Elaios (son) of Simon
agrees to reconcile anew and to welcome the same Salome (daughter) of John Galgoula as wedded wife with a dowry of 200 drachmae, which is 50 Tyrians, which
the same Elaios (son) of Simon acknowledges to have been counted […] the above written 200 drachmae on account of the dowry by Salome (daughter) of John Galgoula…”
The document after line 6 becomes increasingly fragmentary, though it is clear that the content of what follows concerns the maintenance of the children, provisions in the event of either one’s death, and related matters. Along with a handful of other recently published Jewish marriage contracts from the Judean desert, P.Mur. 2.115 furnishes valuable (if disputed) evidence of Jewish marriage practices in this period. 13 For our purposes, the importance of this papyrus is that it contains a previously unattested context for προσλαµβάνω in contemporary documentary texts.
The deed records that Elaios agrees to reconcile anew (ἐξ ἀνανεώσεος καταλλάξαι) with his erstwhile divorced and estranged wife Salome, and to receive her (π̣ροσλαβέσθαι) as his wedded wife once again. 14 In this document, προσλαµβάνω is used to describe the act of welcoming (back) into marriage, a heretofore unattested nuance in the documentary evidence. Worthy of note is the characteristic use of Semitic parallelism; whereas Elaios had divorced and separated from Salome, now he agrees to reconcile and receive her: ἀπαλλαγῆναι καὶ ἀπολύειν … καταλλάξαι κ[αὶ] π̣ροσλαβέσθαι (lns. 4–5). This structure helps clarify the meanings of the words by setting them against their opposites.
The frequency of such matrimonial renewal in antiquity is uncertain because there are very few deeds of remarriage known to us from the Greco-Roman era. For example, in his comprehensive study of Greek marriage documents from antiquity, Uri Yiftach-Firanko notes only two other contemporary contracts that record explicitly the resumption of marriage between a previously divorced couple (2003: 195 n. 42). Neither of the two contracts uses the term προσλαμβάνω in this way. 15 Still, the advice that the apostle Paul gives to divorced Corinthians on the Lord’s authority is that they be reconciled to one another (καταλλαγήτω, 1 Cor. 7.10–11), and there he uses the same word as in P.Mur. 2.115 (καταλλάξαι, ln. 5). That Paul gave such advice suggests that it did occur with some frequency, and the use of the same word to describe it might even indicate some awareness of the process itself.
It has been argued that P.Mur. 2.115 introduces a special nuance to προσλαμβάνω, namely ‘to re-take’. This sense was implied first by the papyrus’s editor, Benoit, who rendered the phrase ‘reprendre la même femme’. This nuance has been argued overtly by Yiftach-Firanko (2003: 41 n. 4; 2005: 78) and also reflected in the translations of Hannah Cotton (1994: 83) and Léonie Archer (1990: 296). Yiftach-Firanko observes that προσλαμβάνω recalls the use of λαμβάνω in a much earlier marriage contract (P.Eleph. 1.1; 311/310 BCE) referring to the groom ‘receiving’ the bride from the father-in-law. This might suggest that προσλαμβάνω in P.Mur. 2.115 indicates the ‘re-receiving’ of the bride: ‘The prefix προσ- emphasizes the fact that it is the couple’s second marriage and that Elaios retook Salome’ (2005: 78). Although this nuance would certainly fit the context of P.Mur. 2.115, I hesitate to opt for such a translation here. For one, the preposition προσ- does not normally suggest this sense of repetition (as does ἀνα-, for example). Moreover, the basic sense of ‘welcome’ or ‘receive’ appears to suffice in this case. Whether or not this additional nuance of προσλαμβάνω is appropriate here is beyond our present concern, which is rather to consider the significance of P.Mur. 2.115 for understanding Paul’s appeal to Philemon.
4. Significance
In considering the relevance of P.Mur. 2.115 for understanding Paul’s appeal to Philemon, we should first make the fairly obvious observation that it provides a concrete and valuable illustration of what προσλαμβάνω could mean in practice. When commanding Philemon to ‘welcome’ Onesimus, what exactly did he expect? Elsewhere in the NT, we have the examples of the βάρβαροι on Malta who welcomed Paul and his companions (Acts 28.2), the strong and the weak in Rome welcoming one another (Rom. 14.1, 3), and Christ’s welcome of sinners (15.7). And, of course, documentary papyri give another possible example, that of the business venture agreement. Yet the image of remarriage offers another tangible illustration of προσλαμβάνω, and an evocative one as well.
Here I suggest three further ways in which P.Mur. 2.115 can inform discussion of Paul’s appeal to Philemon.
4.1 Family Language
First, it is significant that familial language is comparatively more prominent in Philemon than commercial language. Consider the following examples:
‘Timothy our brother [ὁ ἀδελφός]’ (Phlm. 1)
‘Apphia our sister [τῇ ἀδελφῇ]’ (Phlm. 2)
‘God our Father [πατρός]’ (Phlm. 3)
‘my brother [ἀδελφέ]’ (Phlm. 7)
‘my child [τοῦ ἐμοῦ τέκνου], Onesimus, whose father I became [ὃν ἐγέννησα] in my imprisonment’ (Phlm. 10)
‘no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother [ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν]’ (Phlm. 16)
‘yes, brother [ἀδελφέ], I want some benefit from you’ (Phlm. 20)
Without denying the presence of commercial jargon in Paul’s appeal (especially in Phlm. 18–19), it is clear that such terms are surrounded by kinship terminology that sets the tone of the entire letter. In fact, according to Joseph Hellerman, ‘more kinship terminology obtains proportionally in Philemon than in any other portion of the Pauline corpus’ (2001: 119). This is saying quite a lot, since the family is Paul’s most common metaphor for conceptualizing Christian community, and it is held by some to be the most significant one as well (Banks 2020: 44). Even aside from the ubiquity of the terms ἀδελφός/ἀδελφή for Christians, πατήρ for God, and υἱός for Jesus Christ, Paul’s use of other kinship language is imaginative, varied, and pervasive. He speaks of his own apostleship in both paternal metaphors (1 Cor. 4.15, 21; 2 Cor. 12.14; Phil. 2.20–22; 1 Thess. 2.11) and even maternal metaphors (Gal. 4.19; 1 Thess. 2.7–8). He speaks of the spirit of adoption (Rom. 8.14–17; Gal. 3.26, 4.5–6), betrothal to Christ (2 Cor. 11.2), divorce and remarriage to Christ (Rom. 7.1–4), spiritual infancy (1 Cor. 3.1), and eschatological labor pains and childbirth (Rom. 8.18–25; 1 Thess. 5.3)—just to name a few from the undisputed letters. 16
Paul’s use of familial language in Philemon is more than window dressing; it is the vehicle of his appeal. Paul twice addresses Philemon as ‘brother’ with the use of the vocative ἀδελφέ (Phlm. 7, 20). Sandwiched between these bookends is the striking statement that Onesimus himself has become Paul’s child—Paul has ‘begotten’ him (Phlm. 10)—and therefore also Philemon’s brother, which is said explicitly in v. 16. Therein lies the story in nuce. Onesimus has become Philemon’s brother in Christ via Paul, and so Philemon must act in accordance with brotherly love. That Paul here is both father and brother in this triangle is beside the point. What matters is how Philemon understands and acts on his familial duty: ‘It is Philemon’s newly acquired surrogate kin relationship with Onesimus as a brother in Christ that serves as the most persuasive lever in Paul’s argument’ (Hellerman 2001: 119–120).
With this recognition in place, we can appreciate the familial connotations of other terms used in Philemon. For example, κοινωνός (Phlm. 17)—aside from the business idiom we have discussed previously—is also common in familial contexts outside the NT. In the LXX it refers to a marriage partner: καὶ εἴπατε Ἕνεκεν τίνος; ὅτι κύριος διεμαρτύρατο ἀνὰ μέσον σοῦ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον γυναικὸς νεότητός σου, ἥν ἐγκατέλιπες, καὶ αὐτὴ κοινωνός σου καὶ γυνὴ διαθήκης σου (Mal. 2.14, LXX): ‘And you said, “Why?” Because the Lord was a witness between you and between the wife of your youth, whom you abandoned, though she is your companion and the wife of your covenant’ (NETS). Similar uses of the word κοινωνός are also found in other contemporary Greek literature. For example, Philo describes Sarah as Abraham’s κοινωνὸς βίου, ‘partner in life’ (De Abrahamo, 246), and Plutarch records Brutus’s wife Porcia as describing herself as much more than a concubine, but his κοινωνὸς μὲν ἀγαθῶν … κοινωνὸς δ᾽ ἀνιαρῶν, ‘partner in joys … and partner in troubles’ (Brutus, 13.7). 17 Of course, κοινωνός does not mean ‘wife’ (any more than it means ‘business partner’) but it does feature frequently in familial contexts referring to this relationship. 18
Yet another family word worth mentioning occurs in Philemon. In v. 15, Paul delicately refers to Onesimus’s departure with the vague term χωρίζω: ‘Perhaps this is the reason he was separated [ἐχωρίσθη] from you for a while...’ (NRSV). Commentators often point out that the passive voice of the verb is Paul’s subtle means of hinting at a divine purpose in the situation. However, it is also worth considering how this word appears regularly in contemporary marriage deeds in the passive voice. In standard Greek marriage contracts, it frequently and vaguely refers to the potential event of divorce: e.g., ‘If the couple should be separated…’. 19 Similarly, BGU 4.1101, one of the few extant deeds of remarriage noted previously, refers to the initial divorce with the same term: ἐπεὶ συνό̣ν̣τ̣ες ἑ̣α̣[υτ]ο̣ῖς ἔ̣τ̣[η] […] ἐ̣χ̣ω̣ρ̣ί̣σ̣θ̣η̣μ̣ε̣ν̣ ἀπ᾽ ἀλλή(λων)… (BGU 4.1101): ‘Whereas we lived together for [?] years, we were separated from one another…’. 20 In fact, Paul himself uses χωρίζω in the passive voice to refer to literal divorce several times in 1 Cor. 7:10–16. Like κοινωνός, χωρίζω is a word with strong familial connotations.
Thus, familial language is especially prominent in Philemon, including the use of explicit kinship metaphors (e.g., brother, sister, father, birth, child) as well as associated words and ideas (e.g., divorce and partnership), and P.Mur. 2.115 fits squarely in that context.
4.2 Reconciliation
Second, there is a growing recognition among scholars that an important aspect of Paul’s epistle to Philemon is the concept of reconciliation. 21 To be sure, there is considerable disagreement about what precisely Paul is asking Philemon to do—manumit Onesimus, send him back to Paul, or simply forgive him. In fact, it is this ambiguity which has occupied so many scholarly discussions about Philemon. What exactly was Paul asking of Philemon, and why did he not ask it more directly? As John Barclay has memorably observed: ‘The letter is skilfully designed to constrain Philemon to accept Paul’s request, and yet, at the same time, it is extremely unclear what precisely Paul is requesting!’ (1991: 170–71). The fact that modern commentators arrive at radically different conclusions about this question is a case in point. 22
Yet while Paul’s specific request is to a degree frustratingly vague, it is clear that a significant underlying goal was interpersonal reconciliation between Philemon and Onesimus. Although Paul does not explicitly use the term ‘reconciliation’ (e.g., καταλλαγή/καταλλάσσω) in Philemon, the idea is clearly present, especially in such phrases as, ‘Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back forever’ (Phlm. 15, NRSV), and ‘no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother’ (Phlm. 16, NRSV). As Max Turner has put it: ‘Philemon is “all about” human reconciliation: indeed probably the most detailed discussion in the New Testament thereof, even though it does not specifically use the “reconcile” word-group’ (2006: 38–39). 23 Even as the background situation of Philemon is debatable, and the particular request Paul makes is elusive, at a minimum we can see that one of Paul’s fundamental concerns was that these two men be reconciled with one another. 24
It is therefore significant that reconciliation is precisely what P.Mur. 2.115 is about as well. Although this fact is clear to us simply in the nature of the document itself, there is further confirmation in its specific wording. As shown above, the term καταλλάσσω stands alongside of προσλαμβάνω in P.Mur. 2.115 (ln. 5) to describe the reconciliation of Elaios and Salome. Although the commercial contracts noted earlier reflect the notion of enlisting partners into business ventures, none of them suggests a history that involved some sort of prior estrangement or separation. Yet interpersonal reconciliation is what lies in the immediate background of both P.Mur. 2.115 and Philemon.
4.3 Two Worlds
Third, I suggest the preceding considerations provide sufficient warrant to question the likelihood that Paul used προσλαμβάνω as part of a business partnership idiom, whether literally or metaphorically. Given the fundamental and pervasive role of familial language in Philemon, the ultimate goal of interpersonal reconciliation, and the newly recognized familial context of προσλαμβάνω in P.Mur. 2.115, I would argue that the business idiom (‘take as a business partner’) is too restrictive. This is, of course, not to deny the contractual and commercial connotations of the word προσλαμβάνω (and others). It is to state, however, that the business idiom probably does not capture all that Paul intended to say here.
In fact, it is particularly striking that P.Mur. 2.115 at once inhabits two worlds, both the legal and the familial. As an official contract, it bears legally binding and enforceable regulations on the couple, much as we saw with the business idiom in commercial contracts. Yet at the same time, it is a marriage deed and is thus no mere legal agreement, but a document that tells of the reconciliation of a husband and wife, the restoration of domestic intimacy. One need simply to read any given marriage contract from antiquity to see how they are filled with financial and legal matters—for example, the itemization and quantification of the dowry, the specification of the legal ownership of various forms of property, the naming of the legal inheritors of the estate(s), etc. In fact, to a modern reader, ancient marriage contracts might appear rather unromantically preoccupied with money. Such was, however, par for the ancient course. That being the case, Paul himself probably did not conceive of his κοινωνία with Christ, Philemon, and Onesimus in either financial or familial terms. These two worlds were inseparable. And so it comes as no surprise that προσλαμβάνω could evoke both commercial and relational connotations.
As κοινωνοί in Christ, Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus were now a part of the same family. Yet that familial reality does not exclude a legal dimension to the relationship; on the contrary, it gives particular shape to that legal dimension. As Paul makes clear elsewhere, having a share in Christ is a familial privilege. It is no less than adoption into God’s family (Rom. 8.14–17; Gal. 3.26–4.7), but that newfound family relationship entails legally binding responsibilities and obligations (Rom. 8.12–13, 13.8–10; Gal. 6.2). Or, to put it another way, family relationships and contractual obligations are not mutually exclusive but mutually informing. And, in a certain sense, this is precisely what Paul wanted Philemon to understand.
5. Conclusion
P.Mur. 2.115 is an overlooked yet valuable piece of evidence for the key imperative in Paul’s appeal to Philemon: προσλαμβάνω, ‘welcome’ (Phlm. 17). Its primary significance is the use of προσλαμβάνω in a new context, that of a marriage contract sealing the reconciliation of an estranged couple. This use of the word, coupled with important contextual factors in Philemon, comprises sufficient warrant to question the likelihood that Paul employed it as part of a business idiom, although the legal and contractual connotations are certainly not absent. Προσλαµβάνω is a relational word as much as it is a contractual one. The newfound familial association of the word brings fresh insight into Paul’s appeal and provides a concrete and evocative illustration of what he meant when he told Philemon to ‘welcome’ his brother Onesimus.
Footnotes
1
The majority of Greek manuscripts have προσλαβοῦ earlier in the letter in Phlm. 12. The NA28 follows 01*, 02, and 33. My argument here does not depend on this question.
2
3
Glosses here follow BDAG (s.v. προσλαμβάνω), which respectively correspond to those given in 
: II, 211): a. take hold of; b. bring along; and c. lead aside. Louw and Nida suggest another possible meaning in Acts 17.5, ‘gather together’, but they concede that ‘bring along’ (b) might be the meaning there as well.
4
See, e.g., LSJ (s.v. προσλαμβάνω); Moulton and Milligan (s.v. προσλαμβάνω).
5
For example, Campbell (1932: 362); Lohmeyer (1956: 189–90); Knox (1960: 24 n. 12); : 203–4).
6
The idea is entertained by Longenecker (2016: 186) and Barth and Blanke (2000: 474–76), and adopted by Harrill (2006: 15). See also Winter (1987: 11–12), who suggests Paul might have intended a legally binding partnership contract (κοινωνία/societas) with Philemon and is requesting that Onesimus be included as an equal member. Winter here builds on the earlier work of Sampley (1977: 158–74), who concludes that there is insufficient evidence in Philemon to determine whether Paul had a formal societas with Philemon or not (: 79).
7
For example, Moo overtly resists the business idiom (2008: 425–27). More recently, : 100–3) considers the possibility but simply takes the words in their more general senses.
8
9
Another suggested reference point is the reception of envoys in antiquity (Mitchell 1992). However, as : 55) observes, Paul typically uses other terms to refer to this reception (e.g., προσδέχομαι in Rom. 16.2 and Phil. 2.29).
11
I hesitate to identify P.Mur. 2.115 as a ketubbah, a distinctively Jewish form of marriage deed, because it appears to follow Greco-Roman customs instead. See note below.
12
13
There is dispute about whether or not P.Mur. 2.115 records a truly ‘Jewish’ marriage agreement, the defining feature of which was the mohar, or bride-price, which was pledged (but not yet given) by the groom to the bride for her maintenance in the event of their divorce or his death. Our papyrus, however, appears not to record a mohar but rather a dowry (προίξ, ln. 5) brought by the bride (παρὰ Σαλ̣ώμης, ln. 6), which reflects the custom of Greco-Roman marriages. For more discussion, see Cotton and Yardeni (1997: 265–74), Satlow (2001), and Llewelyn (2002: 86–98). In contrast, Archer argues that προίξ here actually means mohar, not dowry (1990: 177). Still, my translation follows that of Benoit, who sees προίξ as Salome’s dowry: ‘une dot de 200 deniers ... somme qu’a reconnu le même Élaios ... lui avoir été comptée’ (: 248–49).
14
The translation ‘wedded wife’ for [γυναῖ]κ̣α γαμετήν (ln. 5) is taken from Cotton (1994: 72 n. 81; see also Yiftach-Firanko 2005: 80), but see also ‘legitimate wife’ (: 296). ἀνανεώσεος (ln. 5) is evidently meant to be ἀνανέωσις.
15
These are BGU 4.1101 (13 BCE) and P.Oxy. 12.1473 (201 CE). For an example of an Aramaic remarriage contract from much later (1052 CE), with references to a few others, see Friedman (1981: 155–65 = no. 13).
16
For other studies on families and familial metaphors in the NT and Paul, see Moxnes (1996), Horrell (2001), Burke (2003), and Aasgaard (2004); and in Philemon in particular, see .
17
Similarly, Musonius Rufus advocates for the education of women so as to be ἄμεμπος βίου κοινωνός, ‘a blameless partner in life’ (Discourse, 3.34).
18
The cognate term κοινωνία (cf. Phlm. 6) is also common in marriage deeds: e.g., γάμου κοινωνίαν, ‘partnership of marriage’ in P.Yadin 18 (128 CE) and P.Dura 1.30 (232 CE), and βίου κοινωνίαν, ‘partnership of life’ in BGU 4.1051 (30 BCE–14 CE) and BGU 4.1100 (30 BCE–14 CE).
19
21
See, e.g., R. Martin (1989: 232); Callahan (1993: 376; 1997: 54–56); Thompson (2005: 223–27); Turner (2006); Hamm (2013:29); Wright (2013: 10–22); Cho (2014: 99–115); McKnight (2017: 100–103); and : 374, 425).