PHILEMON: ALTERNATIVE ORGANIZATIONS

There is reasonable agreement among scholars as to the verses which constitute the body of this short letter. But that consensus breaks down as soon as they attempt to further parse the individual passages within the body. Thus we see the following attempts to define the sub-units in the epistle:

Divisions                                                             Reference

Phm. 8-10, 11-16, 17-20, (21-22)                      NEB

Phm. 8-11, 12-14, 15-16, 17-20, 21-22             TEV

Phm. 8-11, 12-16, 17-21, 22                              NIV

Phm. 8-14, 15-16, 17-22                                   Melick

Phm. 8-14, 15-20, (21-22)                                 RSV

Phm. 8-16, 17-21                                              NRSV

Phm. 8-16, 17-22                                              Aune, N.T. Wright

In my post titled “Philemon: Introduction to the Literary Structure,” I defended the following proposal based on the parallelism found between the respective units:

Figure 1: The Structure of Philemon

A. Opening Greetings and Blessing (vv. 1-3)

B. Expression of Confidence (vv. 4-7)

                                                C. “I am sending him back to you” (vv. 8-14)

                                                C'. “Receive him as you would receive me” (vv. 15-19)

B'. Expression of Confidence (vv. 20-22)

A'. Closing Greetings and Blessing (vv. 23-25)

However, there is one minor point that warrants some discussion, namely the exact position of the break between C' and B'. There is a minority opinion opting for the start of a new literary unit at v. 20, but a transition point between 20 and 21 has much wider support in the scholarly literature. Here are the points in favor of each view:

Break Between Philemon 20 and 21

1. It would keep the common language “brother” (vv. 16, 20) and “Lord” (vv. 16, 20) within the bounds of Section C'.

             2. Aune notes that such a division would provide a perfect inclusio (i.e., set of book ends) to the body of the letter to Philemon formed by the phrase “in Christ” at vv. 8 and 20 and the appeal to Philemon’s emotions in these same verses.

            3. It would provide a verbal parallel between sections C and C' from the presence of “useful / Onesimus” (vv. 10, 11) and “benefit” (v. 20) although not all commentators see a word play on the name Onesimus in v. 20 (Martin).

            4. It preserves the similar phrase “my heart” (vv. 12, 20) found in sections C and C'.

Arguments Supporting a Break Between Philemon 19 and 20

1. Ending C' at this point creates an unusual inclusio for the body of the letter since Wright notes that Paul in vv. 8 and 19 utilizes the identical rhetorical device of stating that he will not say something, at the same time that he in fact is saying it.

2. The autograph is usually placed at the end of an appeal rather than starting a conclusion. Dunn states that in this case its presence in v. 19 functions as a legal IOU.

             3. Such a division begins B' appropriately with the address “brother” as do numerous other literary units in the NT.

             4. It provides several verbal parallels between B and B', all in vv. 7 and 20: “heart,” “refreshed” and “brother.” These correspondences cause Dunn to label them as an inclusio for the body of the letter. Their symmetrical functions, pictured in Fig. 1, are just as likely – closing Section B and beginning B'.

            5. The positioning of the address “brother” as the last word of the Thanksgiving Section B gives it special emphasis. (Guthrie) This is balanced by the presence of the address “brother” at the start of B'. These two references thus exactly encapsulate the intervening material, C-C', which constitutes the body of the letter.

           6. With this proposed division, B and B' end and begin, respectively, with the first and third elements of a three-part syllogism outlined by Aune that underlies one of Paul’s major arguments in the letter: “[I]f Philemon refreshes the heart of Christians (v. 7), and if Onesimus refreshes Paul’s heart (v. 12), then to refresh Paul’s heart Philemon must refresh the heart of Onesimus (v. 20).” A similar close connection between the underlying thoughts in vv. 7 and 20 has been noted elsewhere. (Melick)

         7. “Christ has a large household over which he is Lord...In speaking of his 'Lord,' Paul implies his own relationship of slave to this head of the household. How much more so are Timothy, Onesimus and even Philemon...” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery) Placing a break between vv. 19 and 20 positions one appearance of “Lord” in each section of the letter except C', where the bulk of Paul's appeal (partially based on his own relationship to the Lord) occurs.

The preponderance of evidence appears to favor this latter division, though it is not a point on which to be dogmatic.

Welch's Analysis

John Welch has expanded on a structure proposed by Thomas Boys to produce a 20-part chiasm for Philemon. The way each individual section is described by Welch, it appears to be a persuasive alternative to Figure I above, that is until one examines it a little closer. By the way, there are two important similarities between the two proposals: both treat the opening verses 1-3 as parallels to the closing words in 23-25 and both symmetrical organizations center at verses 14-15. Other than those correspondences, there is little else in common with the two. I will briefly treat each pair of parallels in Welch's analysis in turn.

4 // 22b (Mutual prayers for Paul and Philemon): This is probably the most defensible of Welch's parallels, but is to be expected since these are the two locations in a standard epistle where prayers are usually found.

5-7 // 22a Welch sees references to Philemon's hospitality in both these sections, but in fact 5-7 does not really allude to that characteristic of Philemon at all.

8 // 21 Welch says that both of these verses express Paul's reluctance to ask for obedience from Philemon. However, (a) the word “obedience” does not appear in v. 8 and (b) there is more of a contrast than parallel here since v. 21 actually says that he expects that Philemon will be obedient to Paul.

9-10 // 20 Instead Paul prefers supplication. There is indeed a thematic correspondence here even though no words are found in common between these two sections.

12 // 17 Welch describes these sections, respectively, as saying “I am sending my own heart” and “Receive him as my own self.” In doing so, he unfairly prejudices the reader in favor of the proposed parallel by using the same language “my own” when in fact that phrase does not appear in both places. And also, even as Welch describes them, they are not true parallels but one complete thought somehow separated by four intervening verses.

13 // 16 This is another occasion where Welch strings together two different thoughts to make it appear not as two parallels, but as one continuous sentence (again separated by intervening verses). But to make it worse, he misrepresents the gist of the two verses to come up with the overall thought: (1) Paul kept Onesimus to minister to him in prison, (2) not as a servant but as a brother in the Lord. Even that would not create a parallel between 13 and 16, but v. 13 speaks of Paul's treatment of Onesimus while v. 16 speaks of Philemon's treatment of him instead.

14 // 15 Here Welch attaches the end of one sentence to the start of another one to create a “parallel.” Unfortunately, this same penchant for ignoring the natural thought divisions in the Greek coupled with an almost total lack of any sort of verbal correspondence between the proposed parallels appears in most of the other pairings above.

So, in conclusion, you can see that even a short letter like this one provokes a wealth of scholarly controversy. And with larger books in the Bible, the disagreements are naturally compounded even further.