FILEMONE, EPISTOLA n. — Letter addressed by s. Paul to the disciple and friend F., on behalf of the runaway slave Onesimus.
This writing, often called a “note,” contains all the formal elements of a genuine letter: address, greeting of grace and peace, praise of the addressee (vv. 1-7), the subject treated with relative breadth (vv. 8-21), news, and a final greeting (v. 22 ff). The affectionate and confidential tone brings this letter—which is the shortest of the Pauline letters (though longer than II and III John, and than many writings of antiquity that go under the name of letters)—particularly close to Philippians: both are examples of Paul’s delicacy and nobility, whereby he knows how to cultivate friendships without abdicating his authority.
Onesimus, the slave Colosse (v.), converted by Paul probably during the Ephesian ministry (ca. 53-56), had fled from his master’s house. The name Onesimus (“useful, fruitful”; cf. V. 11) was contradicted by the fact that he had damaged his master in various ways, perhaps even by theft. While in the city where he had taken refuge (Rome, more probably: V. PRIGIONIA, EPISTOLE della) he trembled at the possibility of being sought by the police, he learned that Paul, his master’s friend, was there. It is not impossible that Onesimus, in his flight, had deliberately made for the place where he knew he would find the Apostle. Paul kept him with him, instructing him concerning that new religion which placed free persons and slaves on the same divine plane, making them brothers in Christ. The conversion can scarcely have been difficult, given the beauty—especially for a slave—of this ideal, the goodness of the preacher, and the experience Onesimus had already had of the mildness of his Christian master. Nor can one exclude, in Onesimus, a secret hope that embracing the religion of Paul and of F. might be the right way to escape his humiliating social condition.
Paul initially thought of keeping Onesimus with him (v. 13); but this seemed to him insufficiently considerate toward his friend. Instead, he wanted to offer him the opportunity not merely to perform an act of clemency, such as a pagan too might perform, but to put the principles of Christian morality into social life in the most generous manner, by receiving Onesimus no longer as a slave, but as a brother in Christ. Paul then made himself his guarantor and, with wit, declared himself ready to pay the damages caused by the slave, if it were not enough that F. owed him his very self—that is, his being as a Christian (v. 18 ff). He did not explicitly request the slave’s manumission; but by saying that he was sure F. would do far more than was being asked of him, he made it clear what goal Christianity was pursuing in relation to slavery, without advocating violent and revolutionary means. The abolition of slavery was to be the fruit of a slow but profound transformation of the collective conscience.
The affinity of the subject has suggested a comparison between F. and two letters addressed by Pliny the Younger to Sabinianus (Opera, ed. A. M. Guillemin, III, Paris 1928, pp. 114 ff., 118). In the first, Pliny intercedes on behalf of a freedman who had fled from Sabinianus’s house; in the second, he thanks the latter for having acceded to his request. The case therefore concerns not a slave but a freedman. Moreover, Pliny suggests that, should the offense be repeated, punishment might be applied: this lies outside the perspective of F., which contemplates wholly new relations between master and slave, inspired by mutual love. The distance between servant and master remains intact in Pliny’s letters; nor could that distance be shortened by the fundamental virtue for a Stoic, namely the veneration of what is fitting (τὸ πρῶτον; cf. J. Huby, p. 117 ff.). Even in the skill with which the subject is handled, in spontaneity, and in wit, F. surpasses the pagan writing, remaining a masterpiece of epistolary art (E. Renan, L'Antéchrist, Paris 1873, p. 96); above all, it is marked by Christian dignity and nobility, founded upon the very solid grounds of participation in the divine life in Christ. F. was to offer future generations a practical example of the application of these principles.
The Pauline authenticity has been questioned only by a few followers of the most radical criticism, such as F. C. Baur, C. Weiszecker, and B. Steck; the others agree in recognizing that F. bears within itself the best guarantees of its origin (cf. P. Feine-J. Behm, Einleitung in das Neue Text, 8th ed., Leipzig 1936, p. 195). That it was little cited in antiquity is not surprising, given its brevity, its being addressed to a private individual, and the fact that its doctrinal substratum could be gathered even more clearly from other Pauline letters. S. Jerome speaks in general terms of certain doubts concerning its Pauline authenticity, with implications for the sacred character of the writing; this did not, however, impede the Church’s agreement on either point (In Epist. ad Philen.: PL 26, 635-38). Explicit recognitions are found in the Muratorian Fragment (Enchiridion biblicum, Rome 1927, n. 4), in Origen (In Ier., 19, 2: PG 13, 501), and in Tertullian (Contra Marcionem, 5, 21: PL 2, 524 [556]).
Teodorico da Castel San Pietro