R & T V o l 3/3 (1996) pp 239-281

Onesimus
A case study of slave conversion in early
Christianity
N H Taylor*

ABSTRACT

Scholarly interest in Onesimus has tended to focus on the history behind the letter to Philemon,
the nature ofPaul's request to Philemon, and the degree to which Philemon acceded to it. This
study seeks to address these and other questions against the background of slavery and the
religious practices of domestic slaves in the world ofearly Christianity. The case ofOnesimus can
illuminate the place of slaves in the early Church, and thereby broaden our understanding of
religious conversion in early Christianity. The historical reconstruction offered here is that
Onesimus sought the mediation of Paul in his dispute with Philemon. Paul seeks Onesimuss
restoration to Philemon's household, and to the Christian community which gathered there. In
leaving Philemon's house Onesimus had abandoned also the Christian church to which he
previously belonged, and Paul sought his reinstatement to both household church. The
study concludeswith an application ofSnow andMachelek's typology of the religious convert to
Onesimus, as reflected in Paul's ideology as given expression in Philemon.

INTRODUCTION
The story of O nesfm us has enjoyed considerable interest in both scholarship
and the popular Christian im agination. The im age of ?au l pleading for the
liberation of a m n aw ay slave w ho has becom e a C hristian is not m erely the
figm ent of the pious C hristian im agination, but is a w idely supported
reconstruction in scholarship. The story has traditionally been understood as
concerning O nesim us, the slave of ? a u l's convert ?hifem on, w ho leads the
church in Colossae; O nesim us has fled P hilem on's household- and is in
Rom an law a fugitivus (fugitive slave); he has som ehow found his w ay to
Paul in prison in Ephesus or Rome, and been converted by him ; Paul sends

* An earlier version of this article was presented at the Sociology of Early Christian Workshop, during
the Canadian Congress of Leatned Societies, Montreal, June 199.

259
Onesimus. A case study o f slave conversion in early Christianity

Onesim us back to Philem on, an d w rites the canonical letter to accom pany
his return (e g Lightfoot 1987:303-16; Lohse 1971:196-97; Stuhlm acher
1975:21-22; Barclay 1991; N ordhng 1991). Scholars are m ore divided as to
the fate w hich aw aited O nesim us on his return to Philem on, and as to quite
h ow Paul w ished h im to be treated in the light of his new status as
P hilem o n 's Christian brother, w ith opinions varying from lenient retribution
to m an u m issio n for the service of the Gospel.
This reconstruction has been show n to be a 'legend w ithout foundation'
(Houlden 1977:226), based on inference and conjecture w hich go beyond
w hat the text of Philem on can support. A lternative reconstructions of the
story have been postuiated, the m ost im portant perhaps being that of Knox
( 1960), developed further by W inter ( 1984; 1987) and Schenk ( 1987). They
argue th at O nesim us is not a fugitivas, but rather a m essenger of the church of
Laodicea, w ho has been sent to Paul in p rison in Ephesus; he has
nevertheless clearly incurced the displeasure of his owner, Archippus; the
letter is addressed in the first instance to Philem on, w ho exercises some kind
of oversight of the churches of the Tysus valley, as the substance is a m atter
not of dom estic discipline but of ecclesiastical order. This reconstruction,
w hile revealing the w eaknesses and fallacies w hich beset the traditional
reconstnretion, is equally contrived and raises at least as m any problem s as it
answ ers questions. It is therefore not surprising th at recent studies, including
such m ethodologically innovative treatm ents as those of Feeley-H am ik
(1982) and Petersen (1985), have been founded upon the traditional
reconstruction (so also Barclay 1991; A rzt 1995).
Despite the m ention of three nam es at the com m encem ent of the letter, the
subsequent content is addressed to an individual, in the singular (Wright
1986:165). It concerns prim arily household discipline, although it clearly
has repercussions for the local church. The first addressee, Philem on, is the
m ost likely recipient, and the m ost likely householder and ow ner of
Onesim us. The Knox-W inter hypothesis, and the not entirely dissim ilar
reconstruction of H oulden (1977:226), w o u ld seem to confront one
particularly serious obstacle: the assum ption th at a church or an individual
Christian slave-ow ner w ould have sent to Paul, or have delegated to his
service, a slave w ho w as not a Christian (Rapske 1991:188; Sandnes
1994:75). Both the assum ption and the objection to it, how ever, m ise further
questions: how do we, how does Paul, and h o w did his owner, define
w hether, by w hat m eans, and at w hat point, the slave w as converted to
Christianity? The underlying issue of household conversions and initiations,
an d the degree of voluntarism in household religions in the early Rom an
em pire, is one aspect of the question. A nother is the extent to w hich slaves,

260
 N H Taylor

even, or perhaps particularly, slaves of C hristian ow ners, were adm itted to

C hristian fellow ship. These questions are fundam ental to understanding the
case of O nesim us. Before seeking to reconstruct his story, therefore, a
m ]m her of broader questions need to be addressed-

SOME OBSERVATIONS REGARDING SEAVERY IN THE

EARLY CHRISTIAN WORLD
The institution of slavery w as fundam ental to the econom y and social order
in the Graeco-Roman w orld of the turn of the eras. It was acknow ledged as
such, and w as not challenged on ethical or other grounds. Such debate as
there w as concerned only the philosophical question as to w hether slavery
w as a natu ral state of being for som e races and orders of hum anity (Bartchy
1973:61-64; H opkins 1978:121-22), This w as as true of early C hristianity
(Col 4:1) as of Stoicism (Seneca, Clem 1:18; Benef 3:18-20; Epictetus, Disc
1:29; 3:24; Dio ch r, Diss 14:5). Such concern as w as expressed about slavery
in Judaism related specifically to Jew ish slaves of gentile ovmers (Ex 21:6;
Dt 15:17; Mekh on Ex 21:6; Philo, vit Contemp 70; Om Prob 79; Josephus,
A7 18:21; CD 11:12; 12:10). W hether or n o t s la v e y w as a legitim ate or
m orally defensible social institution is discussed neither in Philem on nor
any other of P aul's letters (Laub 1982:67-75). w h a te v er inferences m ay have
been draw n from Philem on by recent interpreters, Paul is at m ost m aking an
ad hoc appeal regarding a specific case of household discipline. Furtherm ore,
no early interpreter of Paul understood h im to have challenged s la v e y or any
other aspect of social stm cture and hierarchy, w hether in the specific case of
D nesim us or in so sw eeping a text as Gal 3:28 (Shanks 1931; Taylor 1997);
rather, slavery is integral to a social tru c tu re Paul affirm s (cf H onell 1993).
The sam e is true of other early Christian w riters (Jas 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1). The
only extant record of contention relating to slavery in the first century church
concerns w hether or not Christian slaves ought to be m anum itted, w hether
by their Christian ow ners or through financial contributions from free
m em bers of foe church (1 Cor 7:21-24; Ignatius, Polyc 4:3); Paul and
Ignatius alike discourage the practice, the latter w ith m ore vehem ence. The
e ^ e n t to w hich Paul took slavery for granted as a social institution can be
illustrated by foe m etaphor of foe 'slave of God' or foe 'slave of Christ' he
applies to h im self and uses as an instrum ent of his ow n authority (Rom 1:1;
Gal 1:10; P hil 1:1; cf C olem an-N orton 1 9 5 1 :1 55-77; F eeley-H arnik
1982:114-16; M artin 1990:86-116; Bradley 4 :1 - 2 A n Individual
case w ould have been dealt w ith accordingly, and this needs to be recognised
w h en the case of O nesim us is considered.

261
Onesimus. A case study of slave conversion in early Christianity

SLAVES IN FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANITY

Onesim us is unique in being the only slave identified by nam e and status in
the New Testam ent. Siaves w ho appear elsew here are anonym ous, or at m ost
identified by the household to w hich they belong. It w ould appear that m ost
slaves w ho im pinged upon the early Church were household based; in other
w ords they were dom estic or artisan slaves as opposed to agricultural or
m ining labourers. The household w as the basic u nit of society in the w orld of
the fime, and therefore the p r im a ^ socialisation of m ost people, in particular
those of the subordinate and servile orders. It w ould have been in the context
of the h ousehold that these slaves w ould have perform ed th e h principal
religious devotions (cf Laub 1982:6 ) . It w as the n oim al practice for
households to conform to the religious affiliations and practices of the
householder, paterfamilias or . W hen the paterfamilias under-
w ent conversion or change of allegiance, it w ould have been entirely
norm ative for other m em bers of the household to transfer their loyalties
accordingly (Laub 1982: 6 ) . This w ould not have been a voluntary act but
rather involuntary conform ity, w illing or unw illing, w ith the decision and
action of the paterfamilias. W e therefore cannot assum e that any change of
conviction w ould have accom panied such in v o lu n ta ^ conversions (cf Straus
1979:163; Snow & M achalek 1984:171).
Despite these observations, the early C hristian com m unities cannot sim ply
be equated w ith the h o u seh o ld s of ^ o ^ r ty - h o ld in g C hristians. The
household and the church were not coterm inous, and not sim ply because
m em bers of other households as w ell as the h o st's participated in the hfo and
w o rsh ip o f the C h ristian co m m u n ities (cf Rom 16:23; ? h m 2). The
com plexity of the relationship betw een household and church is attested
in particular in ?h ilem o n w here ? a u l grapples w ith the am bivalence
introduced to the relationship betw een Philem on and O nesim us on account
of the conversion of the latter to Christianity: 'Behind Paul's superficially
hom ogeneous language there lies an intricate netw ork of social roles and
relationships th at spans tw o different institutional dom ains' (Petersen
1985:23-24), the household and the church. It is in the church that Paul
can claim jurisdiction and assert authority^ w hereas in the household
P hilem on w ould have been sovereign; the authority of foe church w ould,
m oreover, have enjoyed legal sanction. Therefore, w hile it is readily
understandable th at the effectiveness of Paul's authority depends upon his
draw ing a clear distinction betw een household and church, we should not
lose sight of the inextricable connection betw een the two. It is significant,
how ever, th at Paul accords prim acy to the ecclesial body, and subordinates
the dom estic to it. This is illustrated by his use of the language of prim ary

262
 N H Taylor

socialisation, th at is kinship, to describe relations w ithin the church, in

w hich he is paterfamilias and chnrch m em bers are brothers and sisters of one
another (cf Gnilka 1982:17-33; M eeks 1983:78; ?etersen 1985:61). Despite
these qualifications to the household basis of the early Christian com m u-
nities, we ^ v e rth e le s s need to consider the religiosity of dom estic slaves in
relation to the households to w hich they belonged.
The conversion of slaves bought by Jew ish ow ners, an d the chcum cision
of the m ales, w as general practice in the Empire except w hen prohibited by
the em perors H adrian and Constantine (Cohen 1989:24-2 5). This would
have applied also to gentiles w ho jo in ed a Jew ish household through
m arriage, and at tim es also through em ploym ent or clientage (cf Cohen
1989:24; M cKnight 1991:9 ; G oodm an 1994:65). Slaves did not attain the
statns of proselytes, how ever, unless and u ntil they were m anum itted. The
com pulso]^ initiation of slaves w as m otivated prim arily by the requirem ent
that dom estic slaves be in a state of ritual purity (Goodman 1994:65).
A lthough this w as not at issue for m ost of the early Christians outside
?alestine, we should nonetheless assum e th at a sim ilar principle applied in
early Christianity, th at slaves acquired by Christian owners becam e in some
w ay affiliated to the churches to w hich the latter belonged, particularly
w here the church gathered in the house of the slave-o^m er (cf Sandnes
1994:21-2 5). A t the sam e tim e we cannot assum e that such slaves enjoyed
all privileges accorded to free m em bers of the Christian com m unities. If
Onesim us was not a C hristian before his encounter w ith Paul in prison, was
this because Philem on had not perm itted, still less required, the adm ission of
his slaves to the Christian com m unity w hich m et in his house? W ould
ad m issio n into the church accom pany, but n ot precede, any future
m anum ission? Or w as it th at O nesim us, and perhaps others, had declined
to be adm itted to foe new religion of the household? These are questions
w hich have not been sufficiently considered in previous scholarship, and to
w hich this study will return.
The accounts of household baptism in foe New Testam ent m ake no
explicit m en tio n of slaves, as they m ake no explicit m ention of children. The
evidence is therefore inferential, as debates over infant batism have
illustrated. Acts 1 1 -refers to tlae baptism of Eydia and
after she herself had heard Paul preach. In Acts 16:29-34 Paul offers
salvation to the jailer and his txo, and baptised h im and o't .
The jailer rejoiced at his having com e to faith in God. If Lydia or the
jailer ow ned slaves, as we should assum e they probably did, these w ould
seem to have been included in the Christian initiation process. At first sight
the situation w ould appear to be different in Acts 10:24, w hich refers to

263
Onesimus. A case study of slave conversion in early Christianity

... ' ' of Corneius, an expression w hich

w ouid seem to exclude slaves. A m an of Cornelius' standing w ould alm ost
certainly have ow ned slaves, and the question rem ains w hether these are
sim ply unseen, unheard, and unm entioned, but nevertheless included, or
w hether slaves were consciously excluded. W e should not assum e that,
because slaves w ould not have had the leisure to attend ?eter's preaching,
they w ould n o t have been initiated into C ornelius's n e ^ religion. W hereas in
tire cases o f Lydia a n d th e ja ile r the u se o f is sufficiently
com prehensive to include all m em bers of the respective households, w hether
family, slaves or freed clients, the case of Cornelius nonetheless seems rather
different. The use of , w h ich applies specifically to relatives
(Liddell & Scott 1968:652), w ould seem to exclude other m em bers of the
household. It is possible that Luke deliberately om its any m ention of slaves
in order to em phasise the relatively higher status of Cornelius, and avoid
evoking the stigm a that attached to m ovem ents w ith servile adherents, as
w as to be a factor in toe polem ic of succeeding centuries (cf Cels 5:52-55).
However, such indications as there are in the accounts of household
baptism s to Acts suggest the inclusion of slaves in at least the m ajority of
cases. A t the sam e tim e, we cannot assum e in any of these cases that slaves
enjoyed the sam e status w ith in toe C hristian c r a m u n itie s as free m em bers.
W hile the standing of slaves in early C hristian congregations is unclear,
there w ould nevertheless appear to be som e corcelation betiveen C hristian
slave-ow ners and C hristian slaves, in other w ords households w hich were
identifiable Christian, in such records as rem ain. C hristian slaves of non-
C hristian o^m ers in the first c e n tu ir can be inferred only from 1 Tim 6:2
w here ... are distinguished from non-C hristian slave-
owners. N on-C hristian slaves of C hristian o a r e r s are not explicitly attested
in toe first century at all, an d w here obligations on slave o^mers are
m entioned, it is n o t even suggested that they should convert their slaves
(Eph 6:9; Col 4:1; Did 4:10-11; B am 19:7); rather, these texts presuppose a
reciprocal bond, an d prescribe reciprocal obligations an d a code of conduct
for relations betw een C hristian ow ners and th eir Christian slaves. This
reciprocity is conspicuously m issing from the injunctions concerning slavery
to the ?astoral Epistles (1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10; cf H oirell 1993:94-95).
Hippolytus w as later to advise that the slaves of C hristian o^mers should not
be adm itted to Christian fellow ship w ithout the prior consent of their o ^ e r s
(Trad 15); the im plication being th at at least som e Christian slave-owners
during toe second century w ould not w ish their slaves to be m em bers of toe
church. H ippolytus im poses no such constraints on the adm ission of slaves
of ^ n -C h r is tia n ow ners. However, the principle of not adm itting slaves

264
 N H Taylor

w ithout the consent of their ow ners w as w idespread in the reiigious collegia

of the tim e (Fox 7 986:2 ) , and this m ay at tim es have appiied w ithin the
Christian churches, w hether the o^m ers of the siaves concerned were
C h ristia n or not.
The early C hristian churches, w hile household-based, were not identical
w ith the households of Christian property-ovm ers. We therefore need to
consider the analogies of other religious bodies if we are to understand
adequately the dynam ics of conversion and in corporation into early
Christian com m unities (cf M eeks 1983:74-110). To understand O nesim us
and other slaves of C hristian ow ners, we need to consider in particular the
standing of slaves in such organisations. The primaiY religious orientation of
the slave w as the household, and slaves played no part in civic cults, w ith
the exception of slaves w ho belonged to the relevant civic corporations (Laub
1982:56). Slaves could belong to collegia tenuiorum, and ^ t h i n the follow-
ship of such groups the relative status of the different orders of society was
som ew hat m oderated (Laub 1982:57-58; M eeks 1983:79-84). The m y s te ^
cults did not initiate slaves into m em bership (Bdmer & Herz 1990), w ith the
exception of the A thenian E leusinian m ysteries and the Greek D ionysian and
R om an Saturnine cults, w hose m yths included a nostalgic if tra n s ito ^
recreation of a p rim al egalitarian social order (Laub 1982:56; Yavetz
1988:116; Brner & Herz 1990:118-45). It m ust be doubtful, how ever,
w hether slaves could gain adm ission to such cults or collegia w ithout the
consent of their ovmers. Those w ho regarded foe m ysteries as subversive,
and particularly any w ho nourished egalitarian fantasies, w ould surely have
prohibited the m em bership participation of th eir slaves in such groups.
We need to ask w hether C hristian slave-ovm ers m ay have been inclined to
view aspects of the gospel as subversive of the social order and of their
authority, an d so have excluded th eir slaves even from com m unities w hich
m et in their ow n houses. W e need to consider also w hether at least som e
Christian householders m ay have view ed foe Christian com m unities w hich
gathered around them as elite groups to w hich slaves ought not to be
adm itted. There is no evidence of any debate on these issues in the church of
the first century, though, as we have noted above, the principle that slaves
ought not to be adm itted to the church ^dth o u t the consent of their ow ners
w as asserted during the second c e n tu ^ . W e need therefore to consider
w hether the w ilful exclusion of O nesim us from the Colossian church by
Fhilem on m ay have contributed to the circum stances giving rise to Faul's
letter-
The evidence w ould seem to suggest that during the earliest period of
C hristianity at least m ost Christian slaves belonged to Christian owners, and

265
Onesimus. A case study o f slave conversion in early Christianity

that the slaves of C hristian ow ners w ere them selves regarded as Christian,
even if they did not necessarily enjoy the sam e status w ithin the Christian
conrniunities as free m em bers. The decision of the paterfamilias was in m ost
circum stances definitive for the religious allegiance of the entire household,
but this is not to deny there w ere e x e p tio n s (cf Sandnes 1 4:212- ( There
is no hint in the early C hristian literature of problem s arising from non-
C hristian ow ners c ir c u m s c r i b i n g the piety and devotion, or even the m orality
(cf Finley 1980:95-96) of their Christian slaves. Nor is there any suggestion
that, through their attitude and perform ance of their duties, Christian slaves
m ight convert their ow ners, or vice versa, as is suggested of husbands and
w ives in 1 Cor 7:12-16. The norm ative situation of a Christian slave-owner
heading a C hristian household w ould therefore seem to have prevailed until
at least the second generation of Christianity, w hen such factors as the
enslavem ent of Christians or even the sale of C hristian slaves to other ow ners
m ay have influenced the com position of the churches.
If O nesim us were the non-C hristian slave of a Christian sl^ e -o w n e r. in
the sense of being in no way connected w ith the church to w hich his ow ner
belonged, he w ould seem to have been an exception to general custom in the
church of the first c e n tu ^ . During a later period the pow erlessness of
Christian householders to enforce Christianity, or even to prevent the
practice of paganism , am ong their slaves and in their houses is attested by
Tertullian (Idol 15). Tertullian refers specifically to the im perial cult, w hich
for its political connotations slave-ow ners w ould not dare to suppress.
However, the problem w ould seem to have been wider, as it continued in the
C onstantinian era (Canon Elvira 41). The ^ s s ib ih ty therefore cannot be
dism issed th at Fhilem on and slave-ow ners like h im were unable to im pose
Christianity, and perhaps not even outw ard conform ity w ith it, am ong their
slaves. Quite how unique the case of O nesim us w ould have been, we of
course have no w ay of know ing, other th an that that situation is not
otherw ise attested. W e should note, how ever, th at Tertullian and the Canons
of the Council of Elvira refer specifically to orchestrated defiance of
householders by their slaves, not to the refusal of individual slaves to
conform to the household religion. These are factors we need to bear in m ind
as we come to consider the histoiy b eh in d the text of ?hilem on.

THE SITUATION OF ONESIMUS

Paul clearly regards O nesim us' status as a C hristian as the consequence of
his association w ith h im in prison (Phm 10). The kinship m etaphor w hich
Paul em ploys in this verse, and w hich pervades the letter generally, im plies a
claim that the church should function as the prim ary socialisation of its

266
 N H Taylor

m em bers. The com plexity of the relationship betw een household and church
has briefly been considered above, and w ill require further attention w hen
we consider P aul's appeal to Philem on. W hat is significant for the present is
that the use of the im age im plies a transform ation in O nesim us's status vis-d-
vis Paul and therefore vis-a-vis the church. Philem on, and God.
There has been near consensus in scholarship that O n esim u s was not a
believer an d ... he chose to run away from his believing m aster' (Petersen
1985:264). M oule suggests, but does not elaborate on, the possibility that
w hat took place w as not so m uch O nesim us' conversion to C hristianity for
foe first tim e as a resum ption in his Christian com m itm ent after a lapse
( 19 :? ) . As m any slaves in the w orld of the tim e w ould have been
in v o lu n ta ^ converts w ith no personal conviction or com m itm ent to the
religion of the household, it w ould not be s u ^ ris in g if in at least some cases
departure from a Christian household also involved abandonm ent of the
C hristian church and its faith. M oule's hypothesis, w hile not developed in
h is com m entary, is n o n eth eless w orthy of serious consideration. In
particular, given the i^ x tric a b le links betw een household and church in
foe first centut^, the possibility that O nesim us' departure from P hilem on's
house also im plied his departure from the church that m et there w ould seem
likely. In a previous study 1 have suggested that O nesim us and other
subordinate m em bers of foe household of w hich he was a part had been
incorporated into the Christian com m unity at Colossae w hen Philem on was
converted, and that his departure from P hilem on's house h ad also severed
his links w ith the church that gathered there for w orship and fellowship
(1995:132-33). W hat Paul w ould have accom plished, therefore, w ould have
been not so m uch conversion in the narrow sense of the w ord as the
rein co rp o raro n of O nesim us into C hristian fellow ship. This is a point to
w hich 1 shall return once other aspects of the situation have been considered.
O nesim us w as clearly not a prisoner at foe tim e P hilem on was w ritten
(Bruce 1984:196); if he were, Paul w ould not have been able to send him
back to Philem on. Rather O nesim us enjoyed unrestricted access to Paul and
w as capable of rendering him assistance and of travelling freely to return to
P hilem on's household. If he were a fugitivus the fact m ust have been
successfully concealed from those securing Paul in custodia libra, the form of
im prisonm ent w hich p erm itted access by fam ily and friends. O nesim us m ust
also have been w illing to return to Philem on's household, as Paul w ould not
have been able to enforce this w ithout invoking foe law, in w hich case the
initiative w ould have ceased to lie w ith Paul (cf vss 12, 17, 21). The notion
of O nesim us as fugitivus therefore needs at the v e ^ least som e qualification.
Lampe (1985) has argued th at O nesim us w as not a fugitivus, but w as seeking

26?
Onesimus. A case study o f slave conversion in early Christianity

P aul's intercession w ith his ow ner, and that Paul w rote to Philem on in his
capacity as a friend of his ow ner, amicus domini. In this he has been followed
by Rapske (1991:198-201) and Sandnes ( 994 7 ) . W e t h e r O nesim us had
fled P hilem o n 's house w ith the in tention of P e k in g P aul's intercession on
his behalf, presum ably on account of the offence alluded to in verse 18, or he
had on account of the sam e circum stances left w ith the intention of not
returning, th at is as a fugitivus (Buckland 1908:267; Bellen 1971), he could
cease to be a fugitivus only through the intercession of an amicus domini, in
term s o f the lex proculus w hich h ad been prom ulgated in the reign of
A ugustus (Dig 21.1 17.4). The situation is w ell illustrated by the analogy of
Pliny's letter to Sabinianus, in w hich he, as amicus doming intercedes on
behalf of a libertus of Sabinianus (Ep 9.21.24). The distinction betw een slave,
servus, and freedm an, libertus, is of m arginal im portance, as the relationship
of patronage, dom ination, and obligation was not fundam entally altered by
m anum ission. The distinction betw een P aul's appeal to Christian ^ n c i p l e s
and Pliny's to Stoic is h k e ^ s e of less significance th an the effect intended in
invoking such sentim ents (cf Lightfoot 19 987:3 ;Tohse 1971:196-97). Both
Onesim us an d the freedm an of Sabinianus were subject to and at the m ercy
of m ore pow erful principals, w hose displeasure they had incurred. W hatever
the disciplinary pow ers Sabinianus m ay have h ad over his libertus (cf
She^vin-W hite 0 5 9 8 5 : ) , O nesim us as a servus w oufd certainly have been
subject to severe penalties including torture and death (cf Finley 1980:93-
9 ( In this situation the libertus of Sabinianus seeks the intercession of an
amicus domini w ho, he believed, w ould be able, on account of status or
influen ce, as w ell as reciprocal frien d sh ip obligations, to intercede
successfully w ith his principal, Sabinianus, on his behalf. Lampe (1985; cf
Rapske 1991:198-201) plausibly argues th at an analogous situation lies
behind Philem on. I propose to seek to u n derstand O nesim us's conversion to
C hristianity w ith in this hypothetical context.

THE NATURE OF FAUE'S REQUEST TO PHILEMON

It is abundantly clear th at Paul at the vcuy least seeks som e am elioration of
the penalty O nesim us faced on his return to P hilem on (cf Lampe 1985:197).
It is equally clear that Paul expects O nesim us' status as a Christian, and
therefore P hilem on's brother, to determ ine the response of the latter to the
return to his household of the form er. A cceptance as a Christian brother, and
in som e sense as m ore th a n a slave, how ever, is not nearly as unequivocal as
some scholars have assum ed. The exegetical and socio-econom ic issues are
m ore com plex th an h as hitherto been recognised. 1 hope to be able to shed

268
 N H Taylor

some light on P aul's request to Philem on, on the basis of the foregoing
discussion as w ell as on exegesis of the key texts.
Even as sophisticated a treatm ent of Philem on as Petersen's seems to
depend ultim ately on a relatively sim plistic reconstruction of the issues, how
Paul convinces Philem on to com ply w ith his im plicit dem and for O nesim us'
m an u m issio n (1985:95-98). w h ile illustrating very cogently the com plexity
of the relationship betw een Paul and Philem on, and the inextricably
inteiw oven but nonetheless at least theoretically distinct spheres of house-
hold and church, Petersen does not consider in any detail w hat the
consequences of m an u m issio n w ould be, and h o w O nesim us' becom ing
P hilem o n 's libertus rather th an his servus w ould alter the relationship betw een
them . Irrespective of the legal theory and the conferral of Rom an citizenship
on the form er slaves of R om an citizens (Hopkins 1978:131; Pinley 1980:93;
Alfdldy 1985:140), the status of libertus w ould not in reality have been very
m uch , and it w as undoubtedly a far cry from the status of
(Phm 16). This verse is both com plex and to the m odem
reader am biguous (Barclay 1991:173; cf Stowers 1994:16-21). Key phrases
are capable of m ore than one inte!^retation, w hich substantially affects the
m eaning of the w hole. Barclay argues that Paul is quite deliberately
am biguous, on account of the com plexity and unprecedented nature of the
situation, and his ow n am bivalence and uncertainty both as to the principles
and to the appropriate response to the prevailing circum stances (1991:175).
W hile Barclay is undoubtedly right to em phasise the com plexity of the
situation, it is m ost unlikely that Paul is deliberately being equivocal or
indecisive. It is abundantly clear from verse 21 that Paul e j e c t s to be
obeyed, and this presupposes that he is issuing an unam biguous if tactful
directive (cf Sandnes 1994:77). A n im plicit but unequivocal dem and for
O nesim us' m anu m issio n is argued by several scholars (for exam ple Bruce
1984:199, 217; P etersen 1 985:95-98). H ow ever P hilem on m ay have
understood the letter, this m eaning w as not read into the text until the
institution of slavery itself had been brought into question in w estern Europe
and North A m erica. Indeed, until th at tim e Paul w as seen as exem plifying
the Christian duty of returning runaw ay slaves to their owners for retribution
and continued sereitude death (Jn C h ^ so sto m , PG 62:704; Basil of
Caesarea, Praec Monas 11; cf Shanks 1931:133).
The com plexity of Phm 16 needs to be considered in som e detail, as it
im pinges directly upon h o w O nesim us's conversion is to be understood. I
shall briefly consider the relevant phrases, in order to establish the range of
possible m eanings:
: the precise sense of is crucial to this phrase. Are we to

269
Onesimus, A case study o f slave conversion in early Christianity

understand that ?hilem on is to receive Onesimus 'no longer as a slave' or no

longer just as a slave ?Is his servitude ended, or is simpiy no ionger the only
factor in his relationship with Philemon?
* : here is the ambiguous word. In being somehow more
than a slave', is Onesimus a slave and s<ething else besides, something
which in some sense transcends his statu s as a slave? Or does his status as
supersede entirely his previous status as a slave, and imply his
manumission? If the latter, then the genitive phrase , instead of a
slave', would have expressed this more clearly and une^ivocally; so too
would the omission of this phrase altogether If, however, a new relationship
of brotherhood comes into effect alongside that of dominance and servitude,
then this phrase effectively negates any termination of Onesimus' servitude
implied by the preceding phrase. At the very least qualifies
, and removes any precision there may otherwise have been in that
p h rase.

KUp'iorsy: Petersen may define too rigi<ffy and exclusively

the two spheres of the world and the church ( 1 9 8 5 :9 9 8- ) to which this
phrase refers, or indeed one might define as referring specifically to
the household. How the two spheres relate is unclear. If we are to understand
the expression to mean 'both in the flesh (that is the household) and in the
Lord (that is the church)', and to infer that refers to the brotherhood
between Philemon and Onesimus, then the logical corollary reached by many
exegetes would be justified: that the master-slave relationship was ended,
Onesimus was not just to be manumitted, but also to become not merely
Philem on's libertus, but to acquire the status of his brother in the household in
which he was fomrerly a slave. However, if the phrase is understood to mean
on the one hand in the flesh (that is household), on the other in the Lord (that
is church) then its significance would be fundamentally different. On the one
hand Onesimus would continue as Philemon's slave in the household, but on
the other he would transcend the social chasm which separated him from
Philemon and become brother to the latter in the church.
Each phrase in Phm 16 capable of interpretation as calling for O nesim us'
m ^ u m is s io n is capable also of the opposite m eaning, that is, of dem anding
the slave's continued servitude in P hilem o n 's household alongside his
brotherhood w ith Philem on in the church. The om ission of the phrase
or even replacing the in w ith an w ould have
elim inated any am biguity in favour of an appeal for O nesim us' m anum is-
sion. On baiance, therefore, it w ould seem m ore likely that Paul is
petitioning for O nesim us' restoration to his previous position in P hilem on's
household, com plem ented by his new relationship of C hristian brotherhood

270
 N H Taylor

w ith Philem on, w ith in the sphere of the church w hich m et in P hiiem on's
house <cf Lightfoot 1987:343; Dibelius 1953:107; Lohse 1971:203-206;
G nilka 1 9 8 2 :4 9 -5 1; Lam pe 1 9 85:137; W rig h t 1986:185; N ordling
1991:118). This interpretation w ould be less in accord w ith contem porary
Christian social and theological sensibility (cf Getty 1980:78; Petersen
1985:268; for discussion of the issue see Taylor 1997). However, this
interpretation of trie phrase and of the verse as a whole w ould be more
com patible w ith Christian attitudes to slavery in succeeding centuries, than
interpretation as an injunction to Philem on to free his slave.
In considering this issue, we should note that freedm en were subject to the
sam e obligations and penalties as slaves, but w ith considerably less security
in their dependence upo n their form er ow ners (Hopkins 1978:129). That
Paul is appealing to Philem on for clem ency on behalf of O nesim us is beyond
doubt (cf Lam pe 1985:157). M a n u m issio n w o uld have d im in ish e d
P hilem on's obligations ^dth o u t increasing o ^ s i m u s ' wellbeing or security.
It m ay even be th at O nesim us h ad sought P aul's intercession on his behalf
because he h ad discovered th at freedom , especially fo ra fugitivus, w as not as
desirable as he h ad e j e c t e d .
O nesim us' release from dom estic or w orkshop duties in order to attend
Paul and assist in his w ork w ould not necessarily have involved his
m a n u m issio n . It is perfectly possible th at Paul hoped for such an
arrangem ent, but this could and probably w ould have been accom plished
either through a transfer of o^m ership from O nesim us to Paul (Knox
19 6 0 :2 4 -2 7 ; F eeley-H arnik 1 9 8 2 :1 1 6 -2 2 ; W in ter 1987:9; cf G nilka
1982:44) or th ro u g h seco n d m en t to P a u l's service w hile rem ain in g
P h ilem o n 's slave (M oule 1857:21, 146-47; Stuhlm acher 1975:40-43;
W right 1986:167; Collange 1987:63-64).
W hile it is quite clear th at Paul expects his directive to be followed by
Philem on (cf Petersen 1985:131-51), it is nonetheless clear that in law
O nesim us' fate w as subject not to Paul, and his position in the Church, but to
P hilem on's absolute discretion as his o ^ e r (Daube 1986:41). Paul could
therefore not be confident of P hilem o n 's com pliance w ith his w ishes in the
m atter, and he 'w ould not have needed such a w ide array of m a n ip u la to r
techniques if he h ad been as confident o ^ h ile m o n 's response as he claim s'
(Petersen 1985:265; cf Knox 1960:56). W e therefore cannot be certain of the
outcom e of this episode, though it is arguable th at the preservation of the
letter suggests som e degree of acquiescence w ith Paul's desires. For our
purpose, how ever, it is m ore im portant to try to understand the rationale
behind P aul's directive, and to seek to reconstruct more adequately foe
Onesimus A case study of slave conversion in early Christianity

circum stances in w hich siaves were converted and adm itted to Christian
fellow ship.

HOUSEHOLD AND CHURCH IN PAUL'S IDEOLOGY

Conversion is essentially a process of resocialisation from one socio-religious
oriem ation to another (cf M eeks 1993:76). As is now w idely recognised, the
household w as the prim ary socialisation for the overw helm ing m ajority of
the population of the Greco-Roman world of the first century CE. It has been
noted earlier th at P hilem on to som e extent represents a confrontation
betw een the jurisdiction of the church (represented by Paul) and the
household (in w h ich Philem on is suprem e). U nderlying his letter to
Philem on is P aul's claim that the church m ust be the com m unity of p r im a ^
socialisation for Christians, and therefore o f converts including Onesim us
and Philem on (cf Petersen 1985:78; M eeks 1983:78). Ecclesiastical relation-
ships take priority over dom estic, irrespective of the im pact of Christian
brotherhood on household discipline. It is nevertheless evidently im portant
for Paul th at O nesim us be restored to his p osition in P hilem on's household:
he is sent back, at considerable risk, w ith P aul's d em and that he be accepted
both as slave and as brother, as integral to both household and church. If, as
is w idely m aintained, Paul w ished for O nesim us to be released from
dom estic duties for service to Paul in h is m i s s i o n s w ork, it is nonetheless a
prerequisite that he first be re-integrated into P hilem on's household. Paul
could have been m ore certain of P hilem on's com pliance had he sim ply
presented h im w ith a fait accompli, by w riting and m entioning O nesim us'
having attached him self to Paul, and requesting rgularisation of the
prevailing situation, w ithout returning foe slave to his owner. It was
therefore of fundam ental im portance for Paul that O nesim us return to
P h ilem o n 's household, and we need to consider why.
If O nesim us h a d prev io u sly been an in v o lu n tary convert (Taylor
1995:132-33; cf Cohen 1989:24-26), w hose initiation into foe Christian
cultic fellow ship w h ich m et in P h ilem o n 's house h ad been w ithout
conviction, th en his return to his ow ner's house as a convinced m em ber of
the Christian com m unity w hich gathered there w ould in a sense have
com pleted his conversion. He w ould be resocialised into the household of
w hich he w as already legally a part, but as identifying fully w ith its cultic
life. If, on foe other hand, Philem on had excluded his slaves from the
Christian com m unity, and Paul is dem anding the adm ission of the Christian
slave, th en a precedent is set for a fundam ental redefinition of the
com m unity w hich m et in P hilem on's house. From being an elite cult from
w hich slaves were excluded, at least u ntil m anum ission, as wifo m ost of the

272
 N H Taylor

m ystery re^gions and Jew ish groups 0 the hm e, the church w ould become
m ore Inclusive and heterogeneous. Given the inextricable connection
betw een household and church for those w ho were m em bers of both, and
the theoretically egalitarian and therefore potentially subversive nature of the
notion of Christian brotherhood, the underm ining im pact on household
discipline w ould have been considerable. Sueh texts as 1 Tim 6:1, Tit 2:9,
Ignatius, Polyc 4:3, n d possibly 1 Pet 2:18-20, m ay reflect a situation where
the conflicting ideologies of C hristian brotherhood and patriarchal authority
were occasioning strife w ithin the church and defiance in the household. It is
possible th at this tension w ithin C hristian households lies behind Hippoly-
tu s's directive th at slaves not be a<hnitted to the church w ithout foe consent
of their ow ners (Trad 15). However, if foe principle of the adm ission of
slaves to the church were at stake in pfolem on, one w ould expect a inore
tnram biguous Maternent from Paul, perhaps echoing Gal 3:28, dem anding
access to Christian fellow ship for slaves of Christian householders, before
I^ n u m is s io n , and not only for O nesim us. One w ould further have expected
Paul to have developed a theological rationale requiring the acceptance of
servile m em bers into foe church, com parable to his salvation-historical
paradigm for the salvation of both Jew s and gentiles in Rom ans 9-11 (cf
Taylor 1996). The absence of any such theological rationale for initiation of
slaves into the church, even through developing foe notion of Christian
brotherhood so as to m ake its im plications explicit, suggests that, at least
w ithin P aul's sphere of influence, this was not a contentious issue during the
earliest decades of Christianity (cf Taylor 99?)

PROVISIONAL CONCLUSIONS
The above discussion w ould seem to suggest either that O nesim us had been
initiated into foe Christian com m unity w hich m et in P hilem on's house, or
that he had previously excluded him self from its fellow ship. The latter has
been the im plicit presupposition of m ost previous scholarship. It m ay indeed
be supported by the reference to O nesim us' transform ation from uselessness
to usefulness in verse 1 1; the assum ption being that a pagan slave was
useless, a Christian useful. However, if fois were so, one w ould expect the
connection betw een usefulness and C hristianity to be m ore explicitly
expounded, irrespective of w hether experience had already show n fois to
be foe precise opposite of the case from foe slave-ow ner's point of view (cf
1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2 :1 ;0 Pet 2:18-20; Ig ^ tiu s ,P a /y c 4:3). One w ould also
expect Paul to pre-em pt any suspicion on P hilem on's part that O nesim us'
conversion was m erely an expedient to evade the penalties to w hich a
recaptured fugitivus w as liable. Paul m akes no attem pt to dem onstrate the

273
Onesimus. A case study o f slave conversion in early Christianity

probity of O nesim us' Christian ^ n v ic ti()n s, nor does he suggest that

?h iiem o n w ould be able to satisfy him self by exam ining his slave him self.
That O nesim us h a d declined to be initiated into the Christian com m unity at
the rime of P hilem o n's conversion, but h ad him self becom e converted
through his encounter w ith Paul, w ould therefore seem unlikely.
I w ould therefore m ain tain that O nesim us h ad been initiated, w ith the
subordinate and servile m em bers of P hilem o n 's household, at the tim e of
P hilem o n 's conversion or shortly afterw ards. His m em bership of, and
socialisation into, the church w as determ ined by and contingent upon his
m em bership of the C hristian household. His absconding, for w hatever
reason, severed his link, and ended h is socialisation, w ithin church and
household alike, except that legally he rem ained di fugitivas of the household.
He sought Paul, in the hope th at the apostle w ould intercede w ith Philem on
on his beh alf a n d effect his restoration to the household, a n d therefore to the
church w hich m et there. P aul's letter to Philem on calls for O nesim us'
reinstatem ent, not only as a slave of the household but also as a brother in
the church. His full resocialisation w as essential to the integrity of his
conversion.

ONESIMUS AS A TEST CASE FOR SNOW AND MACHALEK'S

PARADIGM OF THE RELIGIOUS CONVERT
Having reconstructed the story of O nesim us, and established w hat I have
argued to be the probable nature of his conversion to Christianity, it rem ains
to consider in w h at w ays O nesim us, and slaves hke h im w ho were
in c o ^ o ra te d involuntarily into the fellow ship of foe early church, can be
regarded as religious converts. O nesim us' position can, I believe, be
illum inated through Snow and M achalek's paradigm of the religious convert
(1983; 1984) to early Christianity in general, and to the situation of slaves in
particular. In a previous study 1 have suggested that Snow an d M achalek
provide foe m ost adequate paradigm of conversion for the w orld of early
Christianity, provided their m odel is applied w ith some flexibility (Taylor
1995:133). First of all, one needs to be aw are of criticism s of the paradigm ,
w hich have been proffered from w ith in sociology and social psychology,
w hich have rightly questioned w hether the 'rhetorical indicators' of the
convert Snow and M achalek identify are in reality distinctive, or w hether
they are found also in lifelong practitioners of the religion in question (for
exam ple Staples & M auss 1987). M y argum ent w ould be that Snow and
M achalek are right in focusing on these characteristics, even if they are too
dism issive of other em pirical indicators. None of the rhetorical indicators is
u n i q u e converts (cf Taylor 1993; 1995:133), but they nevertheless identify

274
 N H Taylor

aspects of the converston process w hich need to be recognised. My second

point is th at the rhetorical indicators need to be applied w ith a sense of the
diversity of patterns of adm ission, affiliation, and adherence to Judaism and
Jew ish groups in the M ed iterran ean w o rld of the first century, as
dem onstrated m ost clearly by Cohen (1989; cf Taylor 1995).
O nesim us' initiation ipjto m em bership of the church w hich m et in
?h ile m o n 's house w ould not in itself have m ade h im a convert in tetrns of
Snow and M achalek's paradigm (1984:171). However, allowance does need
to be m ade for involuntary converts w ho m ay have been subject to
com pulsory initiation into religious groups to w h ich their ^ in c ip a ls had
been converted (cf Cohen 1989:24-26; Taylor 1995:132). Their lives w ould
subsequently, thro u g h coercion if necessai^, have been brought into
conform ity w ith the rules and conventions of the groups into w hich they
h ad been initiated. Such dem onstration events as status confirm ation rituals
- w hich w ould include initiation rites, com pliance behaviour including
conform ity w ith the w ay of life of the group and gestures w hich reaffiim
allegiance to the group - serve not to indicate (voluntary) conversion so
m uch as to facilitate and ultim ately to entrench the conversion process, and
also to stabilise the com m unity and bring involuntary converts to conviction
an d conform ity (Straus 1979:163; Snow & M achalek 1984:171-73).
O nesim us return to ? h ile m o n 's household, an d reintegration into its life,
w ould therefore have served to stabilise and perpetuate his conversion to
Christianity.
ff O nesim us were an involuntary convert, at least betw een his initiation
into the church and h is absconding from ? h ile m o n 's household, then w e
w ould not expect the rhetorical indicators w hich, according to Snow and
M achalek (1984:173), distinguish converts from other group m em bers to
have been apparent. How voluntary his conversion became through his
encounter w ith ?au l in prison we cannot know : ?au l m ay sim ply have m ade
O nesim us recognise th at restoration to P h ilem o n 's household w ould require
his reinco!q)0ration into the Christian com m unity w hich m et there. However,
w hat is preserved in ? h ilem o n is not O nesim us' ow n account, but rather
P aul's ideology o f conversion, as applicable to a slave an d therefore to an
involuntary convert. In closing, therefore, I shall exam ine Philem on to
establish to w hat extent the rhetorical indicators of conversion are present.
These indicate the displacem ent of one universe of discourse by another, to
use a conception of socially fashioned know ledge indebted to Berger and
Luckm ann (1968).
'Biographical r e c o n d u c tio n ' is the dism antling an d reconstitution of the
convert's p ast lifo, so th at the present religious orientation becomes the basis

275
Onesimus. case study of slave conversion in early Christianity

of interp retatio n of all th at occurred previously (Snow & M achalek

1983:266-69; 1984:173-77; Taylor 1993; 1995:134). The essentially retro-
spective, stereotypical, and acquired nature of converts' accounts of their
past lives h ad been noted previously by Beckford (1978; cf also McGuire
1992:73). To the extent that this recreation of the past is the product of the
individual m in d the pheno m en o n ought perhaps to be t e ^ e d autobiogra-
phical reconstruction (cf Taylor 1993). However, the convert's past is a socially
constructed perception of reality, developed in the context of the new
religious orientation so as to adjust the convert to the com m unity w hich he
or she has joined. In ?h ilem o n this process can be discerned in Paul's
redefinition of O nesim us' identity. Paul, as in a sense the representative as
well as the leadership figure in the C hristian church to w hich Onesim us is to
be restored, defines the status of the latter in term s not sim ply of
m em bership of the local congregation, but of having acquired a relationship
w ith Paul him self. O nesim us has become P aul's son (v 10), and therefore
Philem on's brother (v 16). O nesim us is restored to Philem on ( w 12, 15),
having becom e useful after previously being useless ( v l l ) . However
efficient and com petent otherw ise O nesim us m ay have been at w hatever
duties were assigned to h im is irrelevant, w h a t m atters is that his value is
transform ed on account his conversion; his past is disparaged so as to
contrast w ith his present and future value.
Paul's use of the language of patriarchy and kinship is a particularly
significant instance of biographical reconstruction. The usage is w idespread
in P aul's description of his relationship w ith his converts. In Phm 10 and in
1 Cor 4:15 he uses , and in Gal 4:19 m etaphorically of his
having brought the people concerned into a n ew life as Christians. Paul
frequently ad d resses his churches as h is (2 Cor 6:13; 12:14;
1 Thess 2:11; cf W anam aker 1995) or those of God for w hom he has a
particular responsibility (Gal 4:28 (cf 3:26]; 1 Thess 2:7; cf Eph 5:1).
P hm 10 has perhaps too readily, but nevertheless correctly, been constm ed
as an allusion to O nesim us' conversion (cf Dibelius 1953:105; $t^11macher
1975:38; H oulden 1977:230; G nilka 1982:40; W in ter 1987:4). The
m etaphor of the conception or begetting of a child for conversion is widely
attested in both Judaism (b Yeb 22a; b San 99b (cf M t 23:9-12); Gen
Rab 12:6) and paganism (A puleius, Metam 11:25) of the period. The image
is of course derived from nature and therefore at least potentially universally
understood, and its wide use is therefore not s u ^ ris in g . W hat is im portant
for our present purpose is the use of the im age of prim ary socialisation, that
is kinship, to describe relationships w ith in the Church. 'Paul plays the role of
a significant other in a process of resociahsation, nam ely of converting those

276
 N H Taylor

w ho already have a p r im a ^ socialisation, and w ho, as adults, have also

undergone other s e c o n d a ^ socialisations as w ell' (?etersen 1985:61; cf
M eeks 1983:78). P aul's fatherhood im plies not m erely his having effected
the conversion of O nesim us and others, but his continuing authority as well
as his en d u rin g so cialising an d ed u catio n al relatio n sh ip w ith th em
(Gutierrez 1968:172-96; Feeley-H am ik 1982:121; W anam aker 1989:6).
O nesim us' new identity is derived from his having become Paul's son,
w hich in turn defines his relationship w ith Philem on and his socialisation
both in the household and in the church that m eets there.
The peivasive if not universal causal schem a w hich is understood to
account for p henom ena beyond the self and the group as well as w ithin is
term ed by S now an d M ach alek 'm a s te r at t r i but i on ;19 8 3 : 2 6 9 - 7 3 )
984:173 ), but 1 w ould prefer the expression comprehensive attribution (Taylor
1995:134-35). The belief system adopted by the convert provides the basis of
interpretation in fire transform ed or acquired symbolic universe, w h ile we
cannot recover the transform ation in O nesim us universe of discourse, we
can nevertheless discern the causal system in term s of w hich Paul accounts
for recent events in his letter to Philem on. O nesim us' departure from
P ^ e m o n 's household is explained as a m eans to a greater end, that he
m ight subsequently be restored to Philem on in a new relationship (v 15).
A ny grievance O nesim us m ay have h a d against his owner, or any offence he
h ad given, evasion of foe consequences of w hich m otivated his flight, is
tacitly subordinated to the com prehensive attribution system of w hich Paul's
gospel and apostolic vocation are foe invisible nucleus. P aul's frequent
references to Christ as his significant other 2 3 ,9 ,1 ) and as the basis of
his authority (v 8) and of relating to others ( w 3, 20, 2 5) likew ise points to
an unique and overarching system w ith in P aul's symbolic universe, to w hich
Philem on and G nesim us also belong ( w 1, 7, 20; 10, 16).
Snow and M achalek call their third rhetorical indicator 'suspension of
analogical r eas oni ng1984: 174 ;1 9 8 3 :2 7 5 -7 8) ). This is a som ew hat
extravagant description of the phen o m en o n they describe, given the ubiquity
of analogical thin k in g in the h u m a n cognitive processes. It is perhaps also a
som ew hat passive expression, given the vehem ence w ith w h ich the
p h e n o m e n o n so labelled is often m an ifested . I therefore prefer the
expression assertion of uniqueness to describe the claim to distinctiveness
m ade particularly but only by converts on behalf of their belief system
(Taylor 1995:135). This claim is im plicit in P hilem on in Paul's frequent
references to C hrist, a n d is m ora overt elsew h ere in th e P au lin e
correspondence (for exam ple Rom 3:23-25; 8:1-4; 10:9), as well as being
fundam ental to P au l's ow n self-com eption (cf Taylor 1992:155-70; 1993).

277
Onesimus. A case study o f slave conversion in early Christianity

W hile Paul does n o t explicitly attribute such a sense of the uniqueness of the
Christian gospel to O nesim us, we can infer th at he presum ed O nesim us to
have acquired this perception as integral to his n ew identity as Paul's son
(v 10), even if it h ad been absent during an earlier period of c o ^ o rm ity to
C hristianity in P hilem o n 's house.
The final rhetorical indicator identified by Snow and M achalek they
describe as the 'adoption of a m aster role' ( (78- 83 : 7 a 'convert role'
( 8 4 : 1 7 4 ) . T his h as tw o aspects, w hereby the conversion is both
in tern alised an d externally presented. ! prefer to call the first total
identification by the convert with the group he or she has joined, and the
second the assumption of a representative role on behalf of the group in relations
w ith outsiders (Taylor 19 9 5 13 :) . The convert is, on the one hand, integrated
into the com m unity of believers and, on the other, adopts the w ay of life and
ethos of the com m unity, ^ r tic u la r ly in self-projection tow ards outsiders.
The re-integration of O nesim us in Philem on's household and the church that
m et there is therefore understandably a m atter of priority for Paul (Phm 14-
16), w hatever other legal and ecC esio-political m otives m ay also have
influenced his decision to return O nesim us to his ow ner. Paul also
acknow ledges th at Philem on has assum ed a representative function ( w 4 -
7), though he rem inds h im also of his ow n pre-em inence, as a ( w 1,
23) and as a or (v 9; cf M etzger 1975:657; Lightfoot
1987:337-38). Paul m ay w ell envisage O nesim us' assum ing such a role in
the sense of becom ing a m em ber of his m issionary team (v 13), but his
r e s o c ia lis a tio n as a converted m em ber of P hilem on's household and church
is the im m ediate priority.

CONCLUSIONS
To conclude, we have sought in this study to u n derstand som ething of the
circum stances of the conversion of O nesim us, the slave of Philem on, to
Christianity. The evidence is m in im al and largely inferential, but the case of
O nesim us is unique in the records of early C hristianity in that he is the only
slave w ho appears as an individual w hose place in church life is discussed.
Such i^ ic a tio n s as can be discerned in the N ew Testam ent and Apostolic
Pathers suggest that Christian householders brought w ith them into the
church subordinate m em bers of their fam ilies, as w ell as clients, sereants.
and dom estic slaves, even if the practice w as altered at a later period on
account of the tensions generated by the am biguity betw een relationships in
the household and in the church. The slaves alluded to in the earliest
C hristian w ritin g s app ear to be tho se of C hristian h o u seholders. A

278
 N H Taylor

correlation betw een Christian householders and Christian slaves can there-
fore be regarded as norm ative in the early Church.
I have argued that O nesim us becam e 'de-socialised' from the church that
m et in ? h ile m o n 's house w hen he absconded, either as a fugitivus or w ith the
explicit intent of seeking ? a u l's intervention w ith ?hilem on on his behalf.
His encounter w ith ? a u l resulted in his restoration to Christian fellow ship,
and the internalisation of his hitherto involuntary conversion. W hile we
cannot reconstruct entirely the transform ation in O nesim us' universe of
discourse, the rhetorical indicators identified by Snow and M achalek can be
discerned in ? a u l's incom plete and subjective account to ?hilem on. We
should conclude that slaves of Christian ow ners w ho were involuntarily
initiated into C hristianity w ould not necessarily have internalised their
conversions, so that any subsequent resocialisarion into other households
and other cults w ould have been accom panied by continuing C hristian
com m itm ent. The testim ony of the Pastoral Epistles to Christian slaves of
n o n -C h ristian ow ners, how ever, ind icates th at at least som e slaves
internalised their conversions and sustained their Christian com m itm ent
beyond th eir socialisation into Christian households, or were converted as
individual m em bers of non-C hristian households.
There rem ain several outstanding questions regarding the place of slaves
in the earliest Christian com m unities. Some have been raised, but not
system atically pursued, in this study; others m ay yet come to light. W hile
certainty regarding these issues is inherently evasive, 1 nevertheless hope 1
have show n that the case of O nesim us is substantially m ore com plex th an
has hitherto been appreciated. A full appreciation of the situation leads the
scholar into further issues w h ich have not yet sufficiently been appreciated,
still less explored, w h ile the indications of this study w ould seem to suggest
that a depiction of early C hristianity less rather than m ore congenial to
contem porary Christian social thinking w ill emerge, the questions m ust
nonetheless be pursued w ith all academ ic rigour. 1 hope that this study has
been a contribution in that direction.

REFERENCES
Alfldy, G 1985. The social history of Rome. London: Croom Helm.
Arzt, p 1995. Papyrologisches zu einer ^ a v e ^ u c h t des Onesimus (SBL Seminar Paper,
Budapest).
Barclay, J M G 1 9 9 1 . Paul, Philemon and the dilem ma of Christian slave-ownership New
Testament Studies 37: 161-86.
Bartchy, s s 1973. 1: First century slavery and the interpretation of
I Corinthians 7:21. Missoula: SBL-
Beckford, j A 1978. Accounting for conversion. British Journal of Sociology 2 9:249-62.

279
Onesitrtus. A case study o f slave conversion in early Christianity

Bellen, H 1971. Studien zum Sklavenflucht im rmischen Kaiserreich. Wiesbaden: Steiner.

Berger, P L Luckmann, T 1968. The social construction of reality. London: Penguin.
Bmer, F & Herz, p 1990. Untersuchungen ber die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und
Rom. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Bradley, KR 1994. slavery and society at Rome. Cambridge: CUP.
Bruce, F F 1984. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
Buckland, w w 1908. The Roman law of slavery. Cambridge: CUP.
Cohen, S J D 1 989. Crossing the boundary and becoming a Jew. Harvard Theological Review
8 1:- 4 .
Coleman-Norton, P R 1951. The Apostle Paul and the Roman law of slavery. Studies in
Roman Economic and Social History. Prineeton: PUP.
Collange, j F 1987. L'Epitre de sainte Paul Philemon. Geneva: Labor ct Fides.
Daube, D 1986. Onesimos. Harvard Theological Review 79:40-43.
Dibelius, M F 1953. An die Kolosser, Epheser und Philemon. Tbingen: Mohr.
Feeley-Hamik, G 1982. Is historical anthropology possible? The case of the runaway slave.
Humanizing America's Iconic Book. Chico: Scholars, 95-126.
Finley, M 1 1980. Ancient slavery and modem ideology. London: Chatto r Windus.
Fox, R L 1986. Pagans and Christians. London: Penguin.
Getty, M A 1980. Philippians and Philemon. Dublin: Veritas.
Gnilka, j 1982, Der Philemonbrief. Freiburg: Herder.
Goodman. M D 1994. Mission and conversion. Oxford: Clarendon.
Gutierrez, p 1968. La paternit'spirituelle selon saint Paul. Paris: Gabalda.
Hopkins, K 1978. Conquerors and slaves. Cambridge: CUP.
Horrell, D G 1993. Converging ideologies: Berger and Luckmann and the pastoral epistles.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 50:85-103.
Houlden, j L 1977. Paul's letters from prison. London: SCM,
Knox, j 1960. Philemon among the letters of Paul. London: Collins.
Lampe, p 1985. Keine 'Sk lw e^u ck t' des Onesimus. Zeitschrift fr die neuetestamentliche
Wissenschaft 76:135-37.
Laub, F 1982. Die Begegnung des frhen Christentums mit der antiken Sklaverei. Stuttgart: VKB.
Liddell, H G & S co tt, R 1968. Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon.
Lightfoot, j B 1987. St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. Peabody: Hendrihson.
Lohse, E 1971. Colossians and Philemon. Philadelphia: Fortress.
McGuire, M B 1992. Religion: the social context. Belmont; Wadsworth.
McKnight, S 1 9 9 1 .r t light among the nations. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Martin, D B 1990. Slavery as salvation. New Haven: YUP.
Meeks, w A 1983. The first urban Christians. New Haven: YUP
Meeks, w A 1993. The origins of Christian morality. New Haven: YUP.
Metzger, B M 1975. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: UBS.
Moule, c F D 1957. The Epistles ofPaul theApostle to the Colossians and Philemon. Cambridge:
CUP.
Nordling, J G 1991. Onesimus Fugitivus: a defense of the runaway slave hypothesis in
Philemon. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41:97-119,
Petersen, N R 1985. Rediscovering Paul. Philadelphia: Fortress.

280
 N H Taylor

Rapske, B M 1991. The Prisoner Paul in the eyes of Onesimus. New Testament Studies
37:187-203.
Sandnes, KO 1994. A new family. Bern: Lang.
Shanks, C L 1 9 3 1 . The biblical antislavery argument of the decade, 1830-1840. Journal of
Negro History 16:132-57.
Schenk, w 9 8 7 . Der Brief des Pattlus an Philemon in der neueren Forschung ( 1945-1987).
Aufstieg und Niedergang der Rmischen Welt 11.25.4:3439-95.
Sherwin-White, A N 1985. The letters of Pliny. Oxford: Clarendon.
Snow, D A & M a ch a lek , R 1983. The Convert as a Social Type. Sociological Theory 1983. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass, 259-89.
Snow, D A & M a c h a le k , R 1984. The sociology of conversion. Annual Review of Sociology
10:167-90.
Staples, C L & M a u ss, A 1987. Conversion or commitment? A reassessment to the Snow
and Machalek approach to the study of conversion. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 26:131-47.
Stowers, s K 1994. A rereading of Romans. New Ilaven: UP.
Straus, R A 1979. Religious conversion as a personal and collective accomplishment.
Sociological Analysis 40:1 58-65.
Stuhlmacher, p 1975. Der Brief an Philemon. Zrich: Benziger.
Taylor, N H 1992. Paul Antioch and Jerusalem. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Taylor, N H 1993. 'Paul's Apostolic legitimacy: autobiographical reconstntction in
Gal 1:11-2:14' Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 83:65-77.
Taylor, N H 1995. 'The Social Nature of Conversion in the Early Christian World', p F. Esler
(ed). Modelling Early Christianity. London: Routledge: 128-36.
Taylor, N H 1996. Paulo, Fariseo, Cristiano e Dissonante. Religioni e Societd (forthcoming).
Taylor, N H 1997. Paul for today: race, class, and gender in light of cognitive dissonance
theory. Listening 37 (forthcoming).
Wanamaker, c A 1995. 'Like Father Treats His Own Children': Paul and the con version
resocialisation of the Thessalonians. Journal ofTheologyfor Southern Africa 9 2 :46-5 5.
Winter, S B c 1984. M ethodological obsercations on a new interpretation of Paul's Letter to
Philemon. Union Seminary Quarterly Review 39:203-12.
Winter, S B C 1987. Paul's Letter to Philemon. New Testament Studies 33:1-15.
Wright, N T 1986. The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon. Leicester: IVP.
Yavetz, z 1988. Slaves and slavery in Ancient Rome. Oxford: Transaction,

Dr N H Taylor
D epartm ent of Theology an d Religious Studies
University of Sw aziland
PB Kwaluseni
Sw aziland

281


Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s) express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia funding from Liiiy Endowment !).

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.