Authenticity of Philemon

[davidmartin]

why do i have this mental image of you editing a single A4 page?!

[Chrissy Hansen]

I wish, but it is 83 A4 pages (minus my translation of Philemon which will be included as an appendix).

As a side note I found interesting: BeDuhn's volume on Philemon, there is actually a contradiction. Tertullian claims there were no alterations to the text of Philemon (Against Marcion 5.21), while Epiphanius concludes that it was "distorted" by Marcion's hands (Panarion 42.12.1). Which is accurate? Why not both?

Perhaps the Philemon of Tertullian's day was somewhat different from the received text and what Epiphanius had, leading Epiphanius to conclude the older Marcionite/Tertullianic versions were "distorted"? Unfortunately, we have no idea because neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius provide any actual quotations from the text of Marcion's Philemon. BeDuhn concludes that Epiphanius' statement carries not weight, but I am not entirely confident in that necessarily.

[DCHindley]

Hi Chrissy,

No, not really. I had developed a method for analyzing the Paulines (all 13, not Hebrews) back in the 1990s to see if I could determine where argumentative threads stopped and picked up again. This resulted in a more or less continuous, and what appears to be more coherent narrative with connected arguments. The portions that I had identified as "commentary" (included even counter arguments) were almost all Christ materials. The two types of material (that's what I call it) had peculiarities that differed from one another: for example the use or non use of the definite article "ho" with Kurios & Theos was different.

A 2003 set of files I created used to be hosted by Ben Smith's Text Excavation, not so much because he agreed with me as he felt it was an honest attempt at "excavating" the texts for clues. While it had a basis in the Greek (I used an interlinear translation of W&H Greek text), it was all in English with the coherent materials in one column and the added phrases and comments in a parallel column placed where I had cut them out of the other text so you can see the relationship at a glance.

When Ben decided to withdraw from BC&H several years ago (and we do miss him) the Text Excavation site went down after a while. Some of it was saved in the Wayback(tm) machine at Archive.com, but I do not know if this was among them. He also had several files of mine that compared the ETs of Ezra-Neh-1st Esdras-2 Esdras (the text differs ever so slightly or organized differently). This has been posted here on BC&H as well.

Since then I have created several Greek-English analyses based on whatever GNT text they used in Bibleworks8 (it's what I had used for a long while). These have two columns, but Greek text is in one column and English (I used RSV) in the second. If there were citations of the OT (or other NT books at times) two more columns had the LXX/OG Greek (I had used Rhalfs, or WTT Hebrew if it appeared to significantly differ and fit the RSV text) and Brenton's LXE (for Greek) or RSV (for Hebrew) of Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians are completed, but I am still working on the rest (some more finished than others).

I had to stop because I was not satisfied with the look (I liked the double column that retained the relationship of "original" text to the interpolations as the older English analysis did), while the G-E analysis was based on individual verses or parts of verses, with my identified "interpolations" in bold to set them apart, so a lot more time intensive and you loose the easy visual reference between the two types of "material."

I have since created PDFs of the Ignatian epistles comparing the shorter and longer Greek recensions. Here there were 4 columns, two that had the shorter Greek and the longer Greek (from online files available at Ruslan Khazarzar's(sp) site), with the ETs from the ANF series (OK, ANCL originally) modified for the frequent differences of translation (the translator had picked and chosen readings to translate from the shorter & longer recensions at times, without a single note in the ANF/ANCL footnotes). You learn a lot about translators that way, as well as the differences between the shorter & longer recensions.

I think that may be the better format for the NT Paulines when I can get around to it. Right now I have about 2 years left before I can retire and dedicate time, so it may not be real soon.

I did not make any distinction between Letters to Churches and Letters to individuals, although these are technically different genres, because I felt that the Christ statements were incorporated into an existing text in such a way that you cannot use Christology to identify the "Author" of the letter as a whole. An in-depth analysis of the Christological statements for their own coherency was not as successful. It is clearly high Christology, resembling rough versions of Christological thoughts and ideas implied by the Gospels (the canonical gospels were a little more sophisticated), which I attributed to the interpolated commentary being written earlier than the gospels in the time frame when Christology was developing from an expression of Jesus as a Judean king (anointed for leadership) into Jesus Christ a divine savior.

A review incorporating the views of others about what was going on has yet to be attempted. I have commented about these things here on this list many times.

Sorry if it does not appear "scholarly" but it is a different (and I think original) approach. My approach to separating "interpolations" from an original text may not be perfect, but has more merit than most have given it credit for. I'll have to see if I can repost the 2003 PDFs here. The G-E analyses completed so far were posted online some years ago, right here on BC&H.

Thanks for your consideration. Philemon does not seem to have commentary, but does contain the added phrases you find peppered around the other letters, particularly "in Christ." Well there you have it, warts and all.

DCH

Both the letters to churches and those to individuals (except Philemon) contain extensive interpolations, which I attribute to an early commentary, as well as these seeded phrases added by a final editor. There is nothing like an extensive commentary here.

DCH

Have you published on this somewhere? I'd be most interested to read the reasoning in-depth. I know Holtzmann previously also argued for several interpolations in Philemon.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Thanks that all sounds super interesting!

For those wondering, I have found a few more pertinent resources and annotated them briefly below.

This is a list of academic works I have found arguing or claiming that Philemon was inauthentic explicitly:

Bauer, Bruno. Kritik der paulinischen Briefe. 3 vols; Berlin: Hempel, 1850–52. [vol. III, p. 117 simply agrees with F. C. Baur that Philemon is inauthentic]

Baur, F. C. Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, translated by Robert F. Brown and Peter C. Hodgson. Ori. 1845; Eugene: Cascade, 2021. [pp. 305–8 Philemon is a fictional Christian “romance” showcasing the spirit of Christian unity, and serves as a commentary on Colossians’ passages on slavery in chapters 3–4]

Brodie, Thomas L. The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2004. [p. 586 claims that Philemon is based Philippians; subsequent publications like Beyond the Quest claim Paul never existed, thus no writings are authentic]

Carrier, Richard. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014. [p. 261n12 cites Price and contends Philemon is probably inauthentic]

Detering, Hermann. Paulusbriefe ohne Paulus? Des Paulusbriefe in der holländischen Radikalkritik. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992. [pp. 332–36 recapitulates Dutch Radical positions on Philemon; his subsequent publications make known he regards none of the epistles as authentic]

Evanson, Edward. The Dissonance of the Four Generally Received Evangelists and the Evidence of Their Respective Authenticity, Examined. Gloucester: D. Walker, 1805 [ori. 1792]. [p. 320 argues that Philemon is inauthentic based on it contradicting the Acts of the Apostles]

Johnson, Edwin. The Pauline Epistles: Re-Studied and Explained. London: Watts & Co, 1896. [Contends that the figure of Paul was an invention, none of the letters are authentic, and all of these were the product of a 16th century conspiracy of Catholic monks, even manuscripts were faked]

Paley, Justin. “Questioning the Pauline Authorship of Philemon: Crackpot Theory or Plausible Alternative?” Expository Times 134, no. 1 (2022): 11–20. [Raises several arguments against Philemon’s authenticity; also notes several double standards in assessments of Philemon compared to other Pauline epistles]

Price, Robert M. Holy Fable III: The Epistles and the Apocalypse Undistorted by Faith. n.p.: Mindvendor, 2018. [pp. 151–54 argues Philemon is not authentic following Van Manen; also contains racist caricature of African American slaves for no reason]

———. The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul. Salt Lake City: Signature, 2012. [pp. 502–4 argues Philemon is inauthentic, borrows from Van Manen and contends it may have been pro-Apostolic propaganda to boost Bishop Onesimus]

———. The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts. Salt Lake City: Signature, 2006. [pp. 467–68 follows Van Manen in arguing Philemon is inauthentic]

Schwab, Günther. Echtheitskritische Untersuchungen zu den vier kleinen Paulusbriefen. Band I: Halbband A. Norderstedt: Books on Demand, 2011. [pp. 87–199 argues that Philemon is entirely inauthentic and based in large part on Colossians]

Steck, Rudolf. “Plinius im Neuen Testament.” Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie 17 (1891): 545–84. [pp. 570–84 argues that Philemon is inauthentic and probably based on Pliny’s letters to Sabinianus]

Van den Bergh van Eysinga, G. A. La littérature chrétienne primitive. Paris: F. Rieder, 1926. [139–41 provides a brief summary of arguments against Philemon’s authenticity]

———. “Paulus’ Brief aan Philemon.” Nieuw Theologisch Tijdschrift 29 (1940): 1–18. [Argues against the authenticity of Philemon at large]

Van Manen, W. C. Handleiding voor de Oudchristelijke Letterkunde. Leiden: L. Van Nifterik, 1900. [p. 59 gives some basic reason to consider Philemon inauthentic]

———. A Wave of Hypercriticism: The English Writings of W. C. van Manen. Valley: Tellectual, 2014. [pp. 143–51 reprints Van Manen’s infamous Encyclopaedia Biblica entry contending Philemon is a forgery and partly based on Pliny’s letters to Sabinianus]

Von Weizsäcker, Karl. The Apostolic Age of the Church. Translated by James Millar. Second Edition. Oxford: Williams and Norgate, 1895. [pp. 244–45 contends Philemon probably is inauthentic and Onesimus is an allegorical character]

There are also two others who have raised issues with its authenticity:

Remsburg, John E. The Bible. New York: Truth Seeker Company, 1907. [pages 153–54 places Philemon in the category of “dubious” with respect to its authenticity, separate from the “genuine” and “spurious” epistles]

Seesengood, Robert. Philemon: An Introduction and Study Guide. London: Bloomsbury, 2017. [pp. 79–83 entertains the possibility that Philemon is inauthentic; notes lexical peculiarities and F. C. Baur’s position; subsequently discusses how to interpret Philemon without an authentic author or recipient]

This is a list of those who think it is interpolated:

Brückner, Wilhelm. Die chronologische Reihenfolge, in welcher die Briefe des Neuen Testaments verfasst sind. Haarlem: F. Bohn, 1890. [pp. 200–3 cautiously regards Philemon as having minor interpolations, more cautious than Holtzmann, but claims Philemon is authentic at large]

Hausrath, Adolf. A History of the New Testament Times. Translated by L. Huxley. Volume 4. London: Williams and Norgate, 1895. [pp. 122–23 regards several verses of Philemon as being interpolated, especially those depicting Paul in prison; Philemon still has an authentic core in Hausrath’s view]

Holtzmann, Heinrich J. “Der Brief an den Philemon.” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 16 (1873): 428–41. [Holds that Philemon has an authentic core which has been glossed by interpolations]

———. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1886. [pp. 274–75 contends against Baur that Philemon is authentic, but that it shows evidence of partial interpolation]

Waugh, Stuart. “Philemon: My Reading.” Origins, the 2nd Century (17 Feb 2017), https://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/ ... ading.html [argues for several interpolations of Philemon, specifically the naming of Timothy in v.1, and that vv.2, 21–24 are all “superfluous” additions; vv. 19, 21 are there to “answer question which arose about the authenticity of the letter” thus interpolations; “to me especially” in v.16 is interpolated; v.9 has been redacted with “such an elderly one as (I) Paul”]

A few interesting notes, found a few other sources that reject the authenticity of all Paul's letters:

Paine, Thomas. Age of Reason, Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology. London: H. D. Symonds, 1795. [p. II.94 states that whether Paul wrote the fourteen epistles or not is of no real consequence, but the phrasing certainly indicates Paine is not sold on their authorship]

———. The Works of Thomas Paine. Philadelphia: James Carey, 1797. [in section The Age of Reason, p. 134 is more forceful than his original edition of Age of Reason, stating, “Whether those epistles were written by the person to whom they are are [sic] ascribed is a matter of no great importance, since that writer, whoever he was, attempts to prove his doctrine by argument.”]

———. The Theological Works of Thomas Paine. London: R. Carlile, 1824. [page 344 declares that the evidence that Paul wrote any of the epistles is wanting and that there is no basis for calling them “Paul’s” epistles in any sense]

And then I found two sources that seem far less committed to Philemon's authenticity:

Pfleiderer, Otto. Der Urchristentum, seine Schriften und Lehren, in geschichtlichem Zusammenhang. Berlin: Druck und Verlag von Georg Reimer, 1887. [p. 683 doubts Philemon’s authenticity and raises suspicion that Onesimus is an allegorical character; later rescinds this position in subsequent 1902 expanded edition, holding Philemon is authentic]

Holtzmann, Heinrich J. — “Introduction to the Epistle to Philemon.” In A Short Protestant Commentary on the Books of the New Testament: With General and Special Introductions, edited by Paul Wilhelm Schmidt and Franz von Holzendorff, translated by Francis Henry Jones. London: Williams and Norgate, 1884. [Seems uncommitted to Philemon’s authenticity, despite previous publications]

Hope people find this of interest.

[Peter Kirby]

Schwab, Günther. Echtheitskritische Untersuchungen zu den vier kleinen Paulusbriefen. Band I: Halbband A. Norderstedt: Books on Demand, 2011. [pp. 87–199 argues that Philemon is entirely inauthentic and based in large part on Colossians]

Off the top of my head, this looks the most promising.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Schwab, Günther. Echtheitskritische Untersuchungen zu den vier kleinen Paulusbriefen. Band I: Halbband A. Norderstedt: Books on Demand, 2011. [pp. 87–199 argues that Philemon is entirely inauthentic and based in large part on Colossians]

Off the top of my head, this looks the most promising.

It is definitely the most thorough, and mostly a philological treatise. I've read the entire section on Philemon and it is quite impressive. Unfortunately, the volume is out of print and Schwab is virtually impossible to get in contact with.