PHILEMON

pleasing example that thepaths of honour and eaf etjr may sometimes be the same.' The date of its final capture is un-certain — probably a.d. 1391. Its modem name is Ato-Sheher, and a considerable portion of the population is Chiiatian. A. E. Hillard.

PHILEMON. — Known only as the person addressed by St. Paul on behalf of the runaway slave Oneslmus (Philem '). The closeness of the personal tie between him and the Apostle is expressed in the terms 'beloved and fellow-worker,' and appears In the familiar con-fidence with which St. Paul presses his appeal. From Col 4' it seems that Onesimus, and therefore Philemon, resided in Colossse; Archippus, too, who is joined with Philemon in the salutation, is a Colossian (Col 4"), and there is no reason to doubt the natural supposition that St. Paul's greeting is to husband, wife (Apphia), and son, with the church in Philemon's house. That lie was of good position is suggested not only by his possession of slaves, but also by his ministry to the saints and by Paul's hope to lodge with him (Philem s- 22). He appar-ently owed his conversion to St. Paul (v."), possibly during the long mmistry in Ephesus (Ac 19'"), for the Apostle had not himself visited Colossas (Col 2').

S. W. Green. PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO.— 1 . Occasion and contents . — This beautiful private letter, unique in the NT, pur-ports to be from St. Paul (with whose name that of Timothy is joined, as in 1 and 2 Thess., 2 Cor., Philipp., Col.) to Philemon, with Apphia and Archippus, and the church in his house. This plural address appears, quite naturally, in vv.22 and ^ ('you'); otherwise the letter, is to Philemon alone ('thee'). St. Paul is a 'prisoner' (vv.i- »• 13), — a first Imk of cormexion between this letter and Philippians (1'- 's etc.), Eph (3' 4' 6™), and Col. (43. 18); ijpith Col. there is also close connexion in the fact that Onesimus was a Colossian (Col 4'), and in the salutations in both Epistles from Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke. It is almost certain that the letter was sent from Rome (not Ceesarea) to Colossae, along with the Colossian Epistle, by Tychicus and Onesimus, to be handed to Philemon by the runaway slave, who at St. Paul's instance was returning to the master he had wronged by embezzlement and flight. Oiiesimus had in some way become known to the Apostle, who had won him to the Christian faith (v.'°). St. Paul regards him as his 'child,' his 'very heart,' a 'brother beloved' (vv.'"- '2. ib)^ and would fain keep his helpful ministry (vv."' "). But the convert must first put himself right by voluntary surrender: his service belongs to Philemon, and, however desired by St. Paul, can be accepted by him only of his friend's free will (v."). So St. Paul sends the slave back, with this letter to secure his forgiveness and the welcome of one Christian brother for another (vv."-"). He founds his appeal on what he has heard of Philemon's love ' toward all the saints' (vv.*-'- '); yet makes it also a personal request from ' Paul the aged and now a prisoner,' who has claims upon Philemon's service (vv.'-"- "■ ^n), with just a hint of an authority which he will not press (vv.'- "■ 21, 'obedience'). A wistful humour appears in the play on the meaning of the name Onesimus; 'I beseech thee for Profitable, who was aforetime unprofitable, but now is profitable . . . Yea, let me have profit of thee' (yv.u. 20); also when at v." St. Paul himself takes the pen and with playful solemnity (cf., for the solemn formula 'I Paul,' 1 Co W, 2 Co lO', Col 4", 2 Th 3") gives his bond for the debt, ' I Paul write it with my own hand, I will repay it.' (It is possible, though less probable, that the Greek tense should be rendered 'I have written,' and that the previous verse also, if not the whole letter, is by St. Paul's hand.) Indeed, the mingled earnestness, tact, and charm amply endorse Kenan's verdict — 'a little masterpiece': the letter exemplifies the Apostle's own precept as to 'speech seasoned with salt' (Col 4'), and shows the perfect Christian gentleman.

PHILIP

2. Teaching. — It is significant for the depth and sincerity of St. Paul's religious faith that this private letter in its salutation, thanksgiving, and benediction is as loftily devout as any Epistle to the Churches. Apart from this, the dogmatic interest lies in its illustra-tion of Christianity at work.. The relation of master and slave comes into conflict with that of the Christian communion or fellowship: the problem is whether that fellowship will prove ' effectual in the knowledge of every good thing which is in you unto Christ,' and the slave be received as a brother. St. Paul does not ask that Onesimus be set free. It may even be doubted whether 'the word emancipation seems to be trembling on his lips' (Lightfoot, Col. p. 321): if it is. It is rather that Onesimus may be permitted to return to continue his ministry to the imprisoned Apostle than that Chris-tianity, as he conceives it, forbids slavery. That institution is not in St. Paul's judgment to be violently ended, though it is to be regulated by the Christian principle of equality and responsibility before God (Eph 6»-», Col 322-4'); to the slave himself his worldly position should be matter of indifference (1 Co 7"-"). Yet if Philemon should choose to assert his rights, it will mean a fatal breach in Christian 'fellowship' and the rejection of a Christian 'brother.' Thus St. Paul laid down the principle which inevitably worked itself out— though not till the 19th cent. — into the impossi-bility of slavery within a Christian nation. Christians long and strenuously defended it: Christianity, and not least this letter, destroyed it.

3. Authenticity. — The external testimony is fuU and consistent, although so short and personal a letter might easily lack recognition. It is contained in the Syriac and Old Latin Versions, and named in the Muratorian Fragment. Marcion accepted it (Tert. adv. Marc.y. 21). Origeii quotes from it three times, in each case as St. Paul's. Eusebius includes it among the undisputed books. On internal grounds it may fairly be claimed that the letter speaks for its own genuineness. Some modern critics (since F. C. Baur) have questioned its authenticity, mainly because they reject Colossians, with which this letter is so closely connected. As Renan writes: 'If the epistle is apocryphal, the private letter is apocryphal also; now, few pages have so clear an accent of truth. Paul alone, it would seem, could have written this little masterpiece' (,St. Paul, p. xi.). But it must sufiBce here to afiirm as the all but universal judgment, that ' Phile-mon belongs to the least doubtful part of the Apostle's work' (Jillicher, Introd. to NT, p. 127).

4. Date and place of writing.— The argument for Rome as against Csesarea (Meyer, etc.) seems decisive. Opinion is greatly divided as to the order of the Epistles of the Captivity, i.e. whether Philippians or the group Eph.-Col.-Philem. is the earlier (see Lightfoot, Philip, pp. 30-46). In either case the limit of date for Philem. lies between c. a.d. 60-62, and the later date is sug-gested by VV.21- 22 (see Colossians and Philippians).

S. W. Gheen.

PHILETUS. — Mentioned in St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy (2 Ti 2") a^ an example of one of those who were doing harm by their false teaching on the subject of the resurrection of the body. For them the resurrec-tion was past. It was a spiritual resurrection from sin to holiness, and there was no future resurrection of the body, no life to come. St. Paul says their teaching will eat away the true doctrine as a canker or gangrene eats away the flesh. Cf. HYMEN^aans.

MoRLEY Stevenson.

PHILIP (Apocr.). — 1. Father of Alexander the Great (1 Mac 1' 62). 2. A friend or foster-brother (2 Mac 92*) of Antiochus Epiphanes, who received the charge (pre-viously given to Lysias) of bringing up the young Anti-ochus Eupator (1 Mac 6"). On the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, Lysias took upon himself to proclaim young Eupator king (b.c. 164). The jealousy over this matter led to open hostilities between Lysias and Philip. Philip

2z

721