submitting to angelic “rulers and authorities,” who exercised some form of power over them through law observance, and translating all of this into their every day pattern of life (2:8–10, 16–23). The role of angels in the Colossian philosophy may not be clear-cut since their roles in veneration, mediation, or domination could overlap. What seems likely is that the Colossian philosophy represents a combination of the ascetic-mystical piety of Jewish apocalypticism with its emphasis on visionary experiences of heavenly ascents (an incipient form of merkabah mysticism), the dualism of Hellenistic cosmology and anthropology, and perhaps the veneration of angels influenced by local pagan folk religions involving appeal to angels through magic; all of these are possibilities for comprising elements of the philosophy.
Another element of the Colossian philosophy that I wish to advocate is its tacit missionary function. One or more persons from Colossae or the Lycus Valley is commending Judaism to the Gentile Christians in Colossae by using the religious ritual of ascetic-mystic Judaism and the language of Hellenistic philosophy (most likely Stoicism of some form) as a means of attracting them to it. Harald Hegermann argues that the Colossians were being exposed to Jewish missionary propaganda,84 and while I reject the idea of widespread Jewish missionary activity, nonetheless, I think here it has something going for it. Jewish communities did attract proselytes and many Jews wrote philosophical defenses of their faith for largely Jewish audiences but potentially for Gentile readers as well. Many Gentiles did convert to Judaism and in numbers high enough to alarm the cultural elites.85 Gentile adherents to Jewish ways, sometimes known as God-fearers, do not seem to have been an infrequent occurrence either.86 James Dunn argues that the Colossian philosophy represents the apologia (philosophical defense) of a local synagogue responding to the rise of a form of messianic Judaism in their immediate circle.87 If the best type of defense is offense, then perhaps a circle of Jewish teachers from a local synagogue immersed in Jewish mystical traditions and Hellenistic thought have come into contact with Christians in Colossae and are commending this form of “Judaism” to them. Their criticism of Christianity and Jesus Christ may even be benign in down playing rather than denying him a heavenly role. They condemn those who do not keep the regulations of Torah, they claim a share in the inheritance of Israel, and insist that the Colossian Christians undertake the ascetic rigor required for heavenly visions.88 This scenario provides an appropriate background to the Colossian philosophy and explains the socio-rhetorical dynamics of the letter. This accounts for the Jewish character of the philosophy as well as the Hellenistic terminology in which it is expressed. The philosophy, as it is written about in the letter to the Colossians, arguably represents an attempt by one or more Jewish individuals to recruit Christian Gentiles to a form of Jewish belief and practice through a highly contextualized missionary approach. The absence of a concerted polemic against circumcision (though perhaps implied in 2:11; 3:11; and 4:11) by Paul may be said to count against that hypothesis. But I suggest that the polemical references to circumcision, spiritual or physical, could hardly be heard as any other than an intra-Jewish debate stemming from factional rivalries over the nature and boundaries of Jewish identity. What is more, not all forms of Jewish missionary activity were necessarily said to be after “full” converts. Some Jewish perspectives on conversion did not require circumcision (see especially Josephus Ant. 20.41 and Philo QE 2.2) and only sought partial adherents and philosophical respect for its beliefs and practices in a wider intellectual forum. Whereas Lohse argues that the sacramental initiation was made more attractive by dressing it up in a Jewish term,89 I think the reverse holds, viz., an essentially Jewish religious tradition is being dressed in a garb of Hellenistic philosophy and language, thus appealing to Gentile believers who were formerly pagans in the religious smorgasbord of the Lycus Valley.
The Situation Behind the Epistle to Philemon
So far we have tentatively concluded that the letter to Philemon was written during 55–56 CE during Paul’s imprisonment in Ephesus. It was composed due to the estrangement between Onesimus and Philemon, which, after Paul’s intervention, resulted in Philemon releasing Onesimus to Paul’s care and service. Some time thereafter, Onesimus and Tychicus were dispatched to the Lycus Valley to deliver the letters to the Colossians and Laodiceans (Ephesians).90
It is hard to say much about Paul’s relationship to Philemon and Onesimus because we know very little of the specifics. Philemon was evidently a well-to-do Christian in a small Phyrigan town of the Lycus Valley in Asia Minor, he was a slave owner, and a church met in his house which was presumably led by himself, his wife Apphia, and Archippus. He seems to have shared some kind of partnership/fellowship (koinōnon) with Paul (v. 17), which elsewhere means becoming partners in ministry by sharing material needs (see Acts 2:42; Phil 1:5; 2:1). Paul also says that Philemon owes him his very own self, perhaps suggesting that Paul was significant in Philemon’s conversion and now the apostle seeks a mutual benefit from this relationship (v. 20). Onesimus is known from Colossians as “one of yourselves” and he later travelled with Tychicus to Colossae (Col 4:7–9). He was a slave who had come to Paul, or perhaps he sought out Epaphras and Paul together because they were esteemed by his master and could mediate between them. Or else maybe one of Paul’s associates found him hiding somewhere in want of food and shelter. Sometime during Onesimus’s period of respite and sanctuary with Paul, he was converted to Christian faith (v. 10). Why he had not converted earlier as part of Philemon’s household is a good question but one we cannot answer.
What is the situation behind the letter? There are several options to consider.91 First, there is the traditional view that Onesimus had simply run away from Philemon most probably because he had damaged goods or stolen something leaving his master Philemon out of pocket (vv. 11, 18). Onesimus then sought shelter with Paul, a respected friend of the master, and Paul pleads to Philemon to forgive Onesimus his transgression and hopefully allow him to remain in Paul’s retinue. But there are further factors for consideration that might count against this proposal, such as the observation that Paul never uses the words phygas, draptēs, or fugitivus as terms to describe Onesimus as a slave taken to flight. Nor does he ever refer to the dire punishments that await a returned fugitive slave. Normally runaways try to vanish, so why would a runaway slave flee to his master’s friend and run the risk of being turned over to authorities? Maybe Onesimus had a change of mind or knew that his capture was imminent, but these are speculations to account for the fact that a runaway slave is now in the company of a friend of his master. Moreover, nowhere in the letter is the precise reason for Onesimus’s sudden departure ever given, and running away is only one possibility, which is more ordinarily assumed than proven.
A second option is that Onesimus is not a runaway slave, but is rather a slave who is in some measure of domestic trouble with his master and seeks the intervention of an amicus domini (friend of the master) to intercede for him in hope of being restored back to favored status in Philemon’s household. In this sense, the letter to Philemon is roughly analogous to the letter that Pliny the Younger sent to Sabinus to intercede on behalf of a freedman to his master.92
A third view is that the slave Onesimus was sent to Paul by the church of Colossae to provide provisions for the apostle, but Paul writes back asking that Onesimus be permanently released to his team of coworkers to assist in evangelization. Sarah Winter bases this largely on the high frequency of commercial terminology in the letter as Paul seeks to have Onesimus break all formal and legal ties with Philemon’s household.93
Finally, a fourth perspective is that Onesimus was not a slave at all, but only a brother of Philemon, and Paul seeks to reconcile two estranged brothers. Key to this
