Abstract
Paul includes Apphia as a recipient in his letter to Philemon. He addresses her as ‘the sister’ but gives no further indication of her role. While scholars have often assumed that Apphia is Philemon’s wife, a close reading of the text points away from this designation. This article explores other roles Apphia might have had by examining the roles and occupations women had in the first-century Mediterranean world. It then uses historical imagination to describe three roles Apphia could have had within her cultural context. These roles help to demonstrate why Paul would include her as a recipient and find in her a valuable ally in his appeal on behalf of Onesimus.
Keywords
Introduction
In the New Testament, only one of the thirteen letters that bear Paul’s name includes a woman recipient: Paul’s letter to Philemon. In this letter, Paul addresses Apphia as ‘the sister’ (τῇ ἀδελϕῇ), just as he calls Timothy ‘the brother’ (ὁ ἀδελϕός). But Paul gives no further indication of her role. We may never be able to do more than speculate about her role, but because Paul specifically addresses Apphia, we cannot ask her to simply exit stage left. In this article, I will explore the significance of the recipients of the letter to Philemon, consider the various roles and occupations of women in the first-century Greco-Roman world, and then offer three specific roles that Apphia could have had that led to Paul including her as a named recipient. In presenting these roles, I attempt to bring Apphia into the ‘conversation’ and to demonstrate why Paul would find in her a valuable ally in his appeal on behalf of Onesimus.
The Recipients of the Letter of Philemon
While the letter of Philemon is sometimes identified as a private letter, 1 it is the only letter in the New Testament to include multiple named recipients: Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus. 2 In addition, ‘the church that meets in your house’ (τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκόν σου ἐκκλησίᾳ), 3 is included as a final general recipient. In support of the private letter designation, some scholars argue that the use of singular pronouns throughout much of this letter indicates that Philemon is its primary—and only significant—named recipient. 4 Although it is clear that Paul is directing his appeal to Philemon, he also intentionally addresses the letter to two other people and to the church at large, indicating that the letter was read to all the believers who met in Philemon’s house. 5 As Sara Winter observes, ‘nothing in the greeting suggests that this is a personal letter’ (1984: 206). 6
Some scholars assume that Apphia and Archippus are part of Philemon’s household and thus their inclusion as recipients ‘may have been little more than a courteous gesture’ (Moo 2024: 374, 375). 7 This assumption denies both Apphia and Archippus any significant role they might serve in Paul’s appeal, so it merits further examination. Almost every commentator on the letter to Philemon notes that in the phrase ‘the church that meets in your house’ (τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκόν σου ἐκκλησίᾳ), the possessive pronoun ‘your’ (σου) is singular. Most agree that the antecedent is Philemon, since he is the first named and the main part of the letter is directed to him. 8 Thus, it is Philemon’s house where the church is meeting. It is worth noting that in Rom. 16.5 and 1 Cor. 16.19 when Paul sends greetings to and from the church that meets in Priscilla and Aquila’s house, he uses a plural possessive pronoun in both greetings: ‘to the church that meets in their house’ (τὴν κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίαν, Rom. 16.5; τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίᾳ, 1 Cor. 16.19). 9 Paul’s use of a singular pronoun in his letter to Philemon, then, argues against Apphia and Archippus being members of Philemon’s household. 10
It is also important to note that Paul does not simply name his recipients in this letter, but provides each one a further identification. 11 Philemon is identified as ‘dear friend and fellow worker’ (τῷ ἀγαπητῷ καὶ συνεργῷ ἡμῶν), Apphia as ‘the sister’ (τῇ ἀδελϕῇ), 12 and Archippus as ‘fellow soldier’ (τῷ συστρατιώτη). 13 Just prior to the list of recipients, Paul identifies his co-sender Timothy as ‘the brother’ (ὁ ἀδελϕός). Peter Arzt-Grabner in his research on letter writing during this era asserts that to understand the letters attributed to Paul, they must be considered as a group. He goes on to observe that ‘family terminology was of central importance’ (2023: 51). 14 In his letter to Philemon then, Paul is indicating that Apphia is ‘sister’, in the same way that Timothy is ‘brother’— they are ‘siblings’ in the family of Christ-followers. 15 As Cornelia Van Deventer and Batanayi Manyika note, ‘Even if Apphia and Philemon were married, Paul does not address Apphia on the basis of her status as spouse (and therefore materfamilias), but on the basis of her identity as sister in Christ’ (2020: 140). 16
Some scholars argue further that the article modifying ‘sister’ (τῇ ἀδελϕῇ) indicates more than simply a fellow believer. It is interesting that while Murray Harris identifies the article modifying ‘brother’ (ὁ ἀδελϕός) as one signifying that the person is well known, he identifies the article preceding sister (τῇ ἀδελϕῇ) as possession. 17 However, in the letters attributed to Paul, the other occurrences of an articular ἀδελϕός and ἀδελϕή modifying a specific name point in a different direction. 18 E. Earle Ellis argues that ὁ ἀδελϕός is not a reference to a believer in general, but more specifically to people who are ‘colleagues in the Christian mission’ (1971: 448). Further, where both Philemon and Archippus’s names are modified by a possessive pronoun (ἡμῶν), Apphia’s is not. Nicholas Quient suggests that the ‘lack of a pronoun for Apphia may indicate that the article is intended to raise her status, thus functioning in a “well-known” sense’ (2017: 13 n. 22). This ‘well-known’ use of the article for Apphia then suggests that ‘Apphia, as Timothy, has a specific role recognised by the community’ (Canavan 2019: 16 n. 61). 19
The discipline of discourse analysis helps to further explore the significance of Paul specifically naming Apphia and Archippus as recipients. One of the basic principles of discourse analysis is ‘choice implies meaning’ (Levinsohn 2000: viii; Runge 2010: 5). Paul’s choice of addressing this letter not only to Philemon but also to Apphia and Archippus implies that these two people were particularly important to the success of the appeal he is making to Philemon. His final general recipient, ‘the church that meets in your house’ (τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκόν σου ἐκκλησίᾳ), would likely include these two, so it is significant that Paul mentions them individually. 20 Paul’s choice of listing Apphia before Archippus may also be noteworthy. 21 If Apphia is not Philemon’s wife (as argued earlier), then Paul may be listing her first because she was more esteemed or held a more important role in the church than Archippus. 22
Therefore, the choice to include Apphia and Archippus cannot be simply dismissed as a courteous gesture to members of Philemon’s household. While the use of singular pronouns throughout much of this letter indicates that Philemon is the primary recipient, the plural pronouns in Paul’s opening greeting and closing benediction invite all the recipients into the conversation from beginning to end. 23 Because this letter involves an appeal on behalf of an enslaved person, Paul is wading into the difficult waters of the institution of slavery. There are very likely other enslaved persons—and other enslavers—within this gathering of believers who will be listening closely to what is being asked and watching how those around them respond. 24 Jeffrey Weima notes, ‘Rather than being insignificant, the letter opening serves an important function in the overall argument of the letter’ (2016: 12). It is therefore important to consider why Paul intentionally includes Apphia as a named recipient in this letter. To do so, it is necessary to consider the different roles and occupations women held in the first-century Mediterranean world.
The Roles and Occupations of Women in the First Century
Much work has been done on the roles and occupations of women in the first century, especially in the last fifty years. 25 Scholars have moved from primarily examining the elite literary sources, 26 to also exploring inscriptions and non-elite papyri. The papyri are particularly helpful because they provide a window into the lives of non-elite women, whereas the other sources are focused on the elite and those who could afford to commission inscriptions. However, even with this expanded base of information, the evidence about women and their actual lives is sparse (Hylen 2019: 13).
In addition, what evidence there is, is rarely provided by women themselves. As Lynn Cohick notes, ‘our evidence comes mainly from her father, brother, husband, lover, and owner—in other words, men’ (2009: 20). The portraits of women found in literature, art, and epigraphic sources are most often drawn by men and serve to shape reality rather than reflect it (D’Ambra 2007: 3). This behooves the modern interpreter to recognize the purposes and rhetoric of the sources. 27 Elite literary sources often portray stereotypes, and inscriptions tend to present an ideal image. In other words, it is challenging to determine the actual lives of women from these sources because they served the interests of the men who wrote them. 28 Eve D’Ambra observes that ‘representations of both honored and despised women were so highly conventionalized and rhetorical that we cannot accept them at face value’ (2007: 14).
To further complicate the picture, the sources provide conflicting evidence. While women were considered inferior to men and subservient to them, they were also depicted as business owners, leaders, patrons, and benefactors of both individuals and whole communities (Hylen 2014: 3). 29 Scholars have offered a variety of explanations for this conflicting evidence. Susan Hylen summarizes the four main approaches for explaining the presence of women leaders in the sources: 1) they were not ‘real’ leaders, 2) they were exceptions to the rule, 3) they were limited to distinct communities, and 4) their leadership was limited to the private sphere (2014: 27–35). Cohick duly notes that these explanations are often ‘driven more by apologetic and confessional convictions than by proper historical methodology’ (2019: 36). These approaches fail to consider at least three interrelated cultural realities: that feminine virtues could be exhibited in various ways, that women could have and control their own financial resources, and that status was determined by multiple factors. 30 We will briefly explore these three realities and how they inform the tension in the sources.
The first cultural reality to consider is that feminine virtues could be exhibited in a variety of ways. Women in the Greco-Roman world were expected to exhibit virtues such as submission, modesty, silence, industriousness, and loyalty to family. 31 While it is important to keep in mind that these ideal virtues ‘reflect an elite male perspective’ (deSilva 2022: 207), it is significant that when women were publicly honored for their leadership and benefaction, they were often recognized as being virtuous. 32 Hylen traces this association to the development during the Imperial period of domestic virtues being used to describe civic responsibility (2019: 37–38). Thus, a virtue such as loyalty to family was expressed and encouraged in the civic arena as loyalty to the state. This development ‘supported the appearance of women in leadership roles’ because their leadership and benefactions were seen as ‘evidence of civic responsibility’ (Hylen 2019: 41). 33
The second cultural reality to consider is that women could have and control their own financial resources. These resources gave them some level of independence and allowed them to serve as leaders and benefactors. While marriage customs varied throughout the Roman empire, many followed the practice of providing a woman a dowry when she married. While the husband had legal use of this dowry during the marriage, it had to be returned to the woman upon divorce or a husband’s death (Hylen 2019: 70; Witherington and Witherington 1990: 17). Since divorce was common and women often outlived their husbands due to marrying at a younger age than men (Cohick 2009: 29, 100, 199; Hylen 2019: 81), this led to divorced or widowed women being in control of their dowry, even if a tutor (a male serving in financial oversight) was required. 34 In addition, fathers could give their daughters property that was separate from the dowry. Because this property was not part of the dowry, the husband had no legal use of it (Cohick 2009: 115). Women could also inherit financial resources from their fathers. During the Imperial period, daughters and sons inherited equally from their father (Cohick 2009: 43). If a woman married under the more common sine manu (where she stayed under her father’s authority rather than moving under her husband’s), when her father died she was sui iuris (Cohick 2009: 29, 42). 35 This status rendered her legally independent and able to manage her own wealth and property, albeit under the guidance of a tutor. However, under the Augustan law lex Papia Poppaea, a woman who had three live births, or a freedwoman who had four, was released from the oversight of a tutor (Cohick 2009: 42–43). Also during this period, when a woman’s husband died, she inherited part of his estate; she would inherit even more if the couple had children (Hylen 2019: 82). Due to these cultural customs and laws, both elite and non-elite women owned and controlled property—sometimes a significant amount (Hylen 2019: 94, 96–97). 36
The third cultural reality to consider is that while the Greco-Roman world was an honor/shame culture and ‘status was the social currency in the honor/shame system’, status was determined by multiple elements (Cohick 2009: 23). Those elements included—but were not limited to—birth family, wealth, gender, citizenship, and legal status of enslaved/freed/freeborn (Hylen 2019: 93). All other characteristics being equal, men were considered of higher status than women. However, gender was not the only determination of status nor was it the most important (Hylen 2019: 93). Thus, a woman from a senatorial family was of higher status than a man who was an artisan, a woman of wealth had higher status than a man of lesser wealth (Osiek and Balch 1997: 93). This multivalent determination of status resulted in women having access to both honor and power (Ferguson 2003: 79; Osiek and Balch 1997: 93). 37 In the Greco-Roman world where the ideal was that men were always of higher status than women, the lived reality was that ‘women did participate in public life, did compete for honor, could have greater honor than their husbands, did act as benefactors, and were given crowns, statues, and seats of honor’ (Crook 2009: 609, emphasis his).
These cultural realities help explain the evidence found in the sources that women held public offices, 38 were involved in leadership roles in the religious cults, 39 served as patrons and benefactors, 40 and were found in almost every occupation as well. 41 In light of the evidence, we would be wise to follow Cohick’s advice that ‘we have to reboot our imagination with regard to who filled the ancient streets, because women were everywhere, present publicly at all social levels’ (2009: 325).
Apphia’s Role(s) in Paul’s Appeal
We now turn our attention to Apphia. Since most scholars conclude that Philemon’s house was in Colossae, 42 Apphia’s context would then be Asia Minor, specifically the Lycus Valley. The prosperity of the cities in the Lycus Valley was due primarily to the wool industry located there (Erdemir 2011: 124). Strabo noted that the sheep in this area were widely known for their soft, black wool. 43 Inscriptions in the area record occupations such as wool fullers, dyers, beaters, embroiders, and clothing manufacturers (Erdemir 2011: 113, 116). Cotton textiles were also an important source of income (Erdemir 2011: 118). There is evidence in the papyri and inscriptions throughout the Roman empire that women were involved in these occupations. 44
The public role of women is attested to often during the first century BCE through the second century CE (Bremen 1993: 228). Rosalinde Kearsley observes that ‘the number of women who bore titles of civic office and who acted in a public role within the cities of Asia Minor … is an epigraphic phenomenon largely unparalleled in other parts of the Roman empire’ (2005: 98). 45 While it was only women of significant wealth who would have held these roles, 46 the reality that women did hold these public roles is indicative that the culture in Asia Minor was open and welcoming to women in various areas of leadership. Paul Trebilco provides evidence that this environment influenced the presence of women leaders in the synagogue in Asia Minor (1991: 125, 126). If this culture created space for women leaders in the synagogue, it likely also provided space for women leaders in the house churches.
What then can we say about Apphia? I have argued that Paul’s use of the singular pronoun indicates that the home in which the church met was Philemon’s, not the home of all three named recipients. It follows then that Apphia could not be Philemon’s wife, even though this has been the most common assumption by commentators since the fifth century. 47 I have also argued that Paul’s identification of her as ‘the sister’, likely indicates that she was a recognized colleague in the work of the gospel. By listing Apphia before Archippus, Paul may also be indicating that she was more esteemed or had a more significant role in the church than Archippus. I have made these assertions based on the text of Philemon and the context of the other letters attributed to Paul. But these are only assertions, not proven historical facts. It is important to acknowledge that there is nothing in Paul’s letter, nor anywhere else in the New Testament, that provides us specific information as to who Apphia was. Paul did not write to answer the questions we are asking: Who was Apphia and why did Paul include her as a recipient in his appeal on behalf of Onesimus? But that does not mean the questions are not worth asking or that we have no method by which to pursue them. By considering the evidence we do have about the context and culture in which the letter was written, we can use historically informed imagination to help us consider the possibilities. As Richard Bauckham explains, historical imagination allows us ‘to enter another time and place by understanding both the facts, more or less probably established, and the possibilities they suggest’ (2002: 195). 48
With the historical context in mind and exercising historical imagination, I present three vignettes of possible roles Apphia could have held that influenced Paul to include her as a named recipient in his appeal on behalf of Onesimus. 49 These roles are an elite woman, a non-elite but prosperous businesswoman, and an influential widow. 50
Apphia: An Elite Woman
As the representatives of the wool dyers’ association left Apphia’s house, having obtained from her additional financial support, 51 Apphia’s thoughts turned toward the upcoming meeting of believers at Philemon’s home. While she was usually in attendance at these gatherings, her various obligations as a city official in Colossae sometimes required her to be elsewhere. 52 However, earlier that morning she had received a personal request to attend a meeting, if at all possible, of the believers that evening. Philemon’s slave Secundus, who conveyed the request, informed her that the apostle Paul had sent a letter to be read to the entire church and she was specifically named as a recipient, along with Philemon and Archippus. Secundus also mentioned that Onesimus, Philemon’s missing slave, had arrived with the letter courier.
As Apphia mused about the possible contents of this letter and the unexpected news of Onesimus’s return to someone she considered a harsh master, she reflected on how she came to be a part of this gathering of believers. Since both Apphia and Philemon were members of Colossae’s small group of elite families, she had known him most of her life. At one point, Philemon returned from a trip to Ephesus and began talking about someone named Paul and his teachings about Jesus. While her husband dismissed the teachings as nonsense, Apphia was drawn to learn more. She began attending the gathering of believers in Philemon’s house that was led by Archippus. Soon she accepted Jesus and the teachings about him.
At first, Apphia expected the other believers to give her the respect and deference due someone of her status. But as she learned more of Jesus’ teachings about servanthood and the example he set, she began to understand her relationships within the church differently. She learned to use her wealth and influence to help other believers without expecting public acknowledgment of her generosity or ongoing obligations from someone she helped. She no longer considered what someone could do in exchange for her help but gave generously to those who had a need which she could meet. She had come to realize that these fellow believers were sisters and brothers, part of a new and redefined family.
Because her father had educated her alongside her brother, Apphia could read the Scriptures and the writings that were shared among the churches. She also had the time to study these texts and began to have a teaching role alongside Archippus in the church. Archippus sometimes met with Paul, and he had mentioned Apphia’s benefaction and teaching role in the church on several occasions. So, when Secundus mentioned that she was named along with Archippus as a recipient in this letter from Paul, she was not surprised—the believers in Colossae recognized her as one of their leaders. Rather, her surprise centered on the return of Onesimus and his apparent connection with this letter.
Later that evening, Apphia arrived for the meeting with her enslaved attendant, Primilla, and found a seat among the others. Archippus began the meeting by welcoming everyone and then introduced Tychicus, the letter courier. Tychicus stood to greet those gathered and then invited a visibly nervous Onesimus to stand beside him. As Tychicus began reading Paul’s greetings, his gaze traveled to each one mentioned, finally returning to remain on Philemon. As he read the words, ‘I appeal to you for my child Onesimus’, Tychicus placed a reassuring hand on Onesimus’s shoulder and left it there, as Paul had instructed him to do. Tychicus continued reading, and Apphia became acutely aware of Primilla sitting stiffly beside her, an enslaved person who was also a sister in Christ. It was clear that Paul was asking Philemon to welcome Onesimus warmly into their fellowship as a new believer. But Paul also appeared to not only ask for Onesimus’s manumission, but for Philemon to acknowledge him as a brother of equal status. 53 When the brief letter was concluded, there was complete silence and a palpable tension in the room as everyone waited for Philemon’s response. Philemon appeared stunned, his gaze fixed on Onesimus, a series of emotions passing over his face. But Apphia realized that Philemon was not the only one who needed to respond. She sensed that Paul was asking her to continue the movement she had made toward recognizing what it meant for the people in this assembly, free or slave, to be full members of this family. Apphia found herself rising to her feet, to speak as an advocate not only for Onesimus, but for others like him, including Primilla.
Apphia: A Prosperous Businesswoman
When Philemon’s slave Secundus entered the work area, Apphia and her freedman, Terentius, were inspecting the woolen garments that her slaves were busy creating from the fine wool that came from the local herds. 54 Secundus enjoyed visiting Apphia’s shop because she treated her freedpersons and slaves with kindness and respect. Even though Philemon depended on Secundus as his scribe, he could be a harsh master and held the common view that slaves were naturally lazy, insolent, and immoral and in need of constant supervision and correction. Secundus longed to see in Philemon the change that had taken place in Apphia toward her freedpersons and slaves since she came to believe in Jesus and his teachings.
Secundus admired the beautiful garments while he waited for Apphia and Terentius to complete their inspection. Apphia’s father was in the woolen garment business, and she had grown up working alongside the rest of her family. When she married, her husband Dion quickly recognized her skill for designing garments and overseeing the slaves who created them. The demand for these beautifully styled garments by the elite in Asia Minor and even further abroad had steadily increased since Dion had given Apphia control of this part of his business.
When Apphia was able to turn her attention to Secundus, he conveyed the news that Philemon had received a letter from the apostle Paul to be read to the entire church, and she was specifically listed as a recipient, along with Philemon and Archippus. The church was meeting that evening to hear the letter. Secundus lowered his voice and added that Onesimus, Philemon’s missing slave, had arrived with the letter courier.
Upon hearing the news of the unexpected return of Onesimus in tandem with a letter from Paul, Apphia began to surmise why Paul had specifically named her as a recipient. She had long been a member of the group of believers that met in Philemon’s home. She had first heard about Jesus many years before from Paul himself, when her father had taken her on a business trip to Ephesus. She and her family came to believe in Jesus and began meeting with the group of believers in Philemon’s house led by Archippus. As she had learned more about Jesus and his teachings, she began to see her slaves in a different light, and others in the group noticed how she treated both slave and free equally. It made some fellow slaveowners, especially Philemon, uncomfortable; but others were influenced by her attitude. She knew that Archippus had spoken to Paul about this uneasy situation.
Apphia, Dion, Terentius and others in their household had to complete some necessary work, and so they arrived late for the meeting. To their surprise, the spacious room in Philemon’s house was filled to capacity, and they had to remain standing at the back. The return of Onesimus was obviously of great interest. With the arrival of Apphia, Archippus began the meeting by welcoming everyone and then introduced Tychicus, the letter courier. Tychicus stood to greet those gathered and then invited a visibly nervous Onesimus to stand beside him. There were murmurs throughout the room before silence fell once again.
As Tychicus began reading Paul’s greetings, his gaze traveled to each one mentioned, finally returning to remain on Philemon. As he read the words, ‘I appeal to you for my child Onesimus’, Tychicus placed a reassuring hand on Onesimus’s shoulder and left it there, as Paul had instructed him to do. Tychicus continued reading, and Apphia could see from her place at the back that those in the room were furtively glancing around to measure the reaction of others. It was clear that Paul was asking Philemon to welcome Onesimus warmly into their fellowship as a new believer. But Paul also appeared to not only ask for Onesimus’s manumission, but for Philemon to acknowledge him as a brother of equal status.
When the brief letter was concluded, there was complete silence for a moment and then everyone began talking at once to those around them. Tychicus motioned with his hand, asking for the assembly’s attention again. He looked toward Philemon who shook his head, indicating he was not yet ready to give a response. Tychicus then explained that Paul and his team had discussed the possible reactions to this letter and had decided that if Philemon needed more time before responding, Apphia should be asked to address the assembly. Philemon nodded in agreement, and all eyes turned toward Apphia. Dion squeezed her hand and Terentius offered a brief smile as she moved toward the front. Apphia approached Onesimus, greeting him with a kiss as was the practice in all the churches. 55 As she turned to face those gathered, she realized this might be a long, difficult night. But she also realized that Paul was calling for more than even she had offered her own freedpersons and slaves: not simply kindness and respect, not only manumission, but equal status in this gathered family.
Apphia: An Influential Widow
Apphia finished making the soft woolen blanket, placed it in a basket along with some food items and a few toys, and set out for Sabina’s home. When she arrived, she could hear the newborn crying. She was warmly welcomed into the house, and the other children gathered around to see what she had brought. Sabina was still recuperating from the lengthy and difficult childbirth and was grateful for the provisions and Apphia’s calming and encouraging presence.
Sabina was well acquainted with Apphia’s story and how she had come to be such an integral part of the group of believers who met in Philemon’s home. When Apphia was younger, her family had attended the local synagogue, even though they were not Jews. A friend began sharing with the family about Jesus, explaining how he was the Messiah to whom the Scriptures pointed. Over time the family became convinced of who Jesus was and joined the fledgling group of believers. Apphia married a fellow believer, but a few years later her husband developed a terrible fever and died. While some had encouraged her to remarry, she chose not to out of loyalty to her deceased husband. Her father had provided a generous dowry, and she had inherited much of her husband’s estate. 56 So while she was not wealthy, she had adequate provision. Apphia had been a widow for many years when Sabina met her and was now one of the oldest and most respected members of the group of believers. All accepted her as one of the leaders of the church. Archippus, the group’s main teacher, often sought her counsel concerning the various matters that arose among the believers. He had shared with Paul how the group depended on Apphia’s wisdom and her understanding of the Scriptures.
As Apphia was leaving Sabina’s house, she saw Philemon’s slave Secundus walking toward her. He greeted Apphia and said he had been looking for her. Philemon had received a letter from the apostle Paul to be read to the entire church, and she was specifically listed as a recipient, along with Philemon and Archippus. The church was meeting that evening to hear the letter. A look of concern came over Secundus’s face as he continued. Onesimus, Philemon’s missing slave, had arrived with the letter courier. Apphia immediately understood Secundus’s concern. While Philemon was a kind and generous man, this kindness did not extend to his slaves. His slaves were present at the meetings performing their household duties, but Onesimus had rejected the teachings about Jesus due to his mistreatment by Philemon.
As Apphia walked to the meeting later that evening, she wondered why Onesimus had now returned and how Philemon would respond. Was the letter from Paul somehow associated with Onesimus’s return? When Apphia arrived, Sabina motioned her over to sit with their family. Archippus began the meeting by welcoming everyone and then introduced Tychicus, the letter courier. Tychicus stood to greet those gathered and then invited a visibly nervous Onesimus to stand beside him.
As Tychicus began reading Paul’s greetings, his gaze traveled to each one mentioned, finally returning to remain on Philemon. As he read the words, ‘I appeal to you for my child Onesimus’, Tychicus placed a reassuring hand on Onesimus’s shoulder and left it there, as Paul had instructed him to do. Tychicus continued reading. It was clear that Paul was asking Philemon to welcome Onesimus warmly into their fellowship as a new believer. But Paul also appeared to not only ask for Onesimus’s manumission, but for Philemon to acknowledge him as a brother of equal status. Apphia watched Onesimus throughout the reading of the letter, catching his eye at one point and offering him an encouraging smile.
When the brief letter was concluded, Philemon slowly rose to his feet. He stood silently for some time, then looking around, found Apphia among those gathered. He asked her if she would address the assembly and help them think through what Paul was asking in light of her knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus. As Apphia made her way toward the front, she recognized the deep import of this meeting for Onesimus. And not only for Onesimus but for the freedpersons and slaves seated around the room—and also for those who were so comfortable keeping them in such positions. She was convinced that what Paul was asking was a true reflection of the heart of God. As she looked out on faces which expressed a myriad of emotions, the oft-repeated liberative words from the Israelites’ history echoed in her mind: ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery’. 57 Would those listening be willing to be a community which offered their sisters and brothers in Christ this same liberation?
Paul and Apphia
When Paul wrote his appeal to Philemon, he chose to include Apphia as a recipient. Many have simply assumed she was Philemon’s wife and included due to courtesy or because she managed the household slaves. However, the text of the letter points away from this role. I have suggested three other historically informed possibilities. In the vignettes presented, we catch a glimpse of an influential woman whom Paul respected—one whom he could call upon to be an advocate for Onesimus. Everyone imagines Apphia in some role. It is time we allowed historical and cultural realities to inform our imaginations, rather than our own presuppositions.
Footnotes
1.
For example, Allen 1992: 84; Lightfoot 1890: 301; Meecham 1923: 110; Osborne 2016: 54; 
: 232.
2.
Only 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, and 3 John address named recipients and each of these only names one individual.
3.
All translations are my own unless otherwise indicated. More will be said concerning the referent for the singular pronoun σου and its significance.
4.
Verses 4–24 include singular pronouns with two exceptions (6b, 22).
5.
See also Bieberstein 2001: 111–12; Brogdon 2018: 63; Doering 2012: 383–84; Kearsley and Llewelyn 1994: 44 n. 48; Murphy-O’Connor 1995: 32–53; : 211–12.
6.
See also Klauck 2006: 329; : 97–98.
7.
See also Allen 1992: 82; Melick 1991: 349; : 268.
8.
E.g., Barth 2000: 260; Beale 2019: 380; Garland 1998: 316; McKnight 2017: 58–59; Pao 2012: 364. John Knox is the primary proponent of the minority view that the antecedent is Archippus due to grammatical proximity (: 29).
9.
Pao notes a papyrus letter that includes multiple addressees and a greeting to ‘all in their house’ (2012: 365; his translation). The papyrus is P.Lond. 1 33b (161 BCE), which has the following text: Ἀπολλώνιος Ἱππάλωι καὶ Σαραπίωνι καὶ Βερενίκηι καὶ Πύρρωι καὶ τοῖς (*) ἐν οἰκο (*) πασαι(*) χαίρειν. (The text can be viewed at .) Note that there is no plural pronoun as found in Paul’s letters, only the plural article τοῖς, which can be rendered as a plural pronoun.
10.
See also Bieberstein 2012: 849; Van Deventer and Manyika 2020: 141; Wajda 2017: 44; : 90–91.
11.
12.
Some manuscripts have the textual variant τῇ ἀγαπητῇ for τῇ ἀδελϕῇ. The manuscripts that have τῇ ἀδελϕῇ are either earlier or primarily of the Alexandrian text type; however, they also include Western and Byzantine text types. The manuscripts that have τῇ ἀγαπητῇ are later (9th century or later; D2 being 9th century) and from primarily Western or Byzantine text types. However, Tolmie provides evidence that some of the writers of the 4th /5th centuries are reading τῇ ἀγαπητῇ, and Ambrosiaster (4th century) is reading a conflation: ἀδελϕῇ τῇ ἀγαπητῇ. But Tolmie also notes that for some of these writers, Paul calling Apphia ‘beloved’ was problematic. He comments that they ‘found it necessary to point out that Paul had no improper motives in using the term’ (Tolmie 2016: 297). One could argue that whether Paul called Apphia τῇ ἀδελϕῇ or τῇ ἀγαπητῇ, both terms may hold similar significance. First, Paul uses the term ἀγαπητός to describe both Philemon (Phlm. 1) and Onesimus (Phlm. 16). Second, in the other letters attributed to Paul, he also uses this term for those whom he values as fellow believers and ministers in the gospel: Ampliatus (Rom. 16.8); Epaenetus (Rom. 16.5); Epaphras (Col. 1.7); Luke (Col. 4.14); Onesimus (Col. 4.9); Persis (Rom. 16.12); Stachys (Rom. 16.9); Timothy (1 Cor. 4.17, 2 Tim. 1.2); and Tychicus (Eph. 6.21, Col. 4.7). That said, the reading of τῇ ἀδελϕῇ has textual support from the earliest and best manuscripts and wide geographical distribution, and τῇ ἀγαπητῇ could be an assimilation to the preceding Φιλήμονι τῷ ἀγαπητῷ (: 588). Both the manuscript and transcriptional evidence point to Paul describing Apphia as τῇ ἀδελϕῇ.
13.
15.
See also Bieberstein 2012: 850; Van Deventer and Manyika 2020: 140. As Arzt-Grabner explains, ‘Almost from the beginning all Christians became “brothers” and “sisters”, thus not only forming a new movement but also living together in a new “family”’ (: 203).
17.
Harris 2010: 210, 211. For the ‘well-known’ use of the article, see : 225.
18.
Rom. 16.1, 23; 1 Cor. 1.1, 16.12; 2 Cor. 1.1, 2.13; Eph. 6.21; Phil. 2.25; Col. 1.1; 4.7, 9; 1 Thess. 3.2. While the occurrences in 2 Cor. 8.18, 22 and 12.18 do not modify a name, the article is functioning in the same way.
19.
See also Aasgaard 2004: 298; Beattie and Thurston 2009: 212; Cotter 1994: 351; Ehrensperger 2007: 49; : 92–93.
20.
See also Van Deventer and Manyika 2020: 138; : 44.
21.
Tolmie, in his work on how commentators understood Apphia’s role in the fourth and fifth centuries, notes that Jerome and possibly Origen were ‘apparently disturbed by the fact that Paul mentioned her before Archippus’ (: 296). He goes on to observe that ‘once it had been accepted that Apphia was Philemon’s wife, it became easier to explain the fact that she was mentioned before Archippus’. Tolmie establishes that this view—that Apphia that was Philemon’s wife—did not gain acceptance until the fifth century.
23.
χάρις ὑμῖν (v. 3); μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν (v. 25). Note also the plural pronouns in v. 22b: ἐλπίζω γὰρ ὅτι διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν ὑμῶν χαρισθήσομαι ὑμῖν.
24.
I will be following the practice of using the terminology of ‘enslaved’ and ‘enslaver’ except when citing or closely discussing the text of Philemon itself.
25.
26.
27.
D’Ambra asserts that ‘particularly because women do not speak to us directly in the ancient sources …, it is important to determine who is representing them and for what purposes’ (2007: 3). See also : x–xiv.
28.
Cohick 2009: 322; D’Ambra 2007: 6, 9; : xi.
30.
31.
deSilva 2022: 205–6; Ferguson 2003: 79; : 5.
32.
For example, Atalanta from Termessos provided wheat for the city and many other benefactions. For so doing, she was recognized by the city as ‘adorned with every feminine virtue (πᾶσαν γυναικείαν ἀρετὴν ἀποδεικνυμένη)’, TAM III 4, as cited in Bremen 1993: 227. For a full translation of the inscription see Associations in the Greco-Roman World. See also Kearsley 1999: 200; : 102, 103.
33.
When examining Plutarch’s Mulierum virtutes, Crook comments that ‘what is revealing about Plutarch’s work is not that it shows honor being distributed to women: we already knew that happens. What is revealing is that honor was being distributed to women because they were witty, brave, aggressive, and loyal to the state’ (: 604–5).
34.
38.
Women held such offices as dekaprotos, gymnasiarchos, strategos, prytanis, and demiourgos, to name a few (Bremen 1993: 238 n. 14; Cohick 2009: 291; Kearsley 1999: 199; : 356).
39.
Women served as priestesses, prophetesses, and financially supported the cults (Cohick 2009: 178–79; Ferguson 2003: 79; Witherington and Witherington 1990: 25). Cohick observes that ‘both the literary and epigraphic evidence show that women served at the highest levels in pagan religious cults’ (: 178).
40.
Women benefactors made donations of money and property to various guilds and religious cults, held banquets, distributed wheat to the population, created food programs for poor children, and built amphitheaters, public baths, and temples (Bremen 1993: 227; 238 n. 14; Kearsley 1999: 199). In recognition of these benefactions, these women were given golden crowns, statues, inscriptions, and seats of honor (Bremen 1993: 223, 235; Cohick 2009: 294, 299, 323; Crook 2009: 609; : 18).
41.
Women were authors, artisans, blacksmiths, fullers, tailors, fabric dyers, vendors, business owners, money-lenders, philosophers, teachers, physicians, musicians, actors, athletes, and even gladiators (Bremen 1993: 229; Cohick 2009: 233–34, 238–39, 240, 242, 255; D’Ambra 2007: 137; Dixon 2001: 97–98; Ferguson 2003: 79; Hylen 2019: 126–28; Osiek 2016: 17–18; Osiek, MacDonald, and Tulloch 2006: 155, 163).
42.
E.g., Barth 2000: 127; Beale 2019: 367; Cadwallader 2023; Dunn 1996: 300–1; Fitzmyer 2000: 12; McKnight 2017: 37. Thurston prefers a less specific location of the Lycus Valley in general (Beattie and Thurston 2009: 178). Balabanski proposes that Philemon’s house was located in Italy rather than Asia Minor ().
43.
‘The country round Laodiceia produces sheep that are excellent, not only for the softness of their wool, in which they surpass even the Milesian wool, but also for its raven-black colour, so that the Laodiceians derive splendid revenue from it, as do also the neighbouring Colosseni from the colour which bears the same name’ (Strabo, Geogr. 12.8.16).
44.
Wool fullers: Cohick (2009: 233); dyers: Cohick (2009: 234), clothing manufacturers: Cohick (2009: 234), Hylen (2019: 126). Erdemir observes that the ‘woolen industry was reliant upon women for its productivity’ (2011: 121). Hylen notes the evidence in the New Testament for women’s involvement in these occupations: Acts 9.39, 16.14, and 18.3 (:129–30).
45.
See also Trebilco 1991: 124. Kearsley explains that ‘the marked strength of the phenomenon in Asia Minor was due in large part to the continued existence of the dynastic families of the Pontic region during the Augustan period. So deeply were the Hellenistic traditions of female leadership entrenched locally by the Augustan queens and by their immediate descendants that although public office-holding by women was not a legitimate behavioural mode in Rome, it was possible under Roman government in Asia Minor’ (: 118).
46.
Bremen 1993: 225; : 125.
47.
Tolmie comments that ‘what is important to realise is that the identification of Apphia as Philemon’s wife was a relatively late development, that it arose hesitantly, and that it was only accepted as a fact early in the fifth century, i.e., around the time of Chrysostom, Pelagius and Theodoret’ (Tolmie 2016: 296). A few of the most recent commentators who assume Apphia was Philemon’s wife include Bird 2009: 134; Dunn 1996: 312; Garland 1998: 317; Melick 1991: 350; : 159. Although Osborne does note that ‘the fact that Paul mentions her is not due simply to her status as Philemon’s wife; Paul does not mention the wives of Christian leaders unless they are leaders in their own right, as in the pairings of Priscila and Aquila in Romans 16:3 or Andronicus and Junia in Romans 16:7’.
48.
On the use of historical imagination, see also Cadwallader and Trainor 2011: 207; Cohick 2009: 26; : 2.
49.
In each of these vignettes, I assume that Onesimus was enslaved by Philemon and that he left without Philemon’s permission. Young (2021) has made a particularly strong argument for the ‘sent slave’ theory, but I am not yet fully persuaded. While the ‘sent slave’ theory answers some questions that the ‘runaway slave’ theory does not (especially how Onesimus found Paul while Paul was in prison), it fails to supply a likely reason Philemon sent Onesimus to Paul. In this letter, Paul gives no indication of receiving supplies (as in Philippians) or of any kind of report from the church (as in 1 Corinthians). Many scholars have chronicled how the ‘runaway slave’ theory has been used to perpetuate slavery; however, the usage of this letter in pro-slavery arguments implicates poor and harmful interpretations of the letter rather than the probable historical situation. Brogdon’s presentation of ‘exclusionary koinonia’ is a helpful correction to many of the interpretations of Philemon (). While I do not agree with all his assertions, I find his overall proposal a promising way forward.
50.
In these vignettes, I present Apphia as a foil, if you will, to Philemon. Just as there were likely enslavers who did not change their view or treatment of those they enslaved when they became followers of Jesus, there were also likely people whose belief in Christ and their incorporation into this new family led them to question the legitimacy of slavery within the church itself. In these scenarios, Philemon represents the former while Apphia represents the latter. I believe that these historical imaginations can be supported by the text, but other possibilities exist.
51.
For evidence of women serving as benefactors of guilds see footnote 40.
52.
For evidence of women holding public offices see footnotes 38, 45.
53.
I concur with de Vos that the ‘even more’ (v. 21) that Paul is asking is a step beyond what manumission would offer. As de Vos argues, ‘In expecting a fundamental change in perception and relationship, Paul was actually asking for something far more radical than manumission. What he expected effectively undermined the collectivist, authoritarian and patriarchal values of Graeco-Roman society’ (: 104).
54.
For evidence of women being business owners see footnote 41.
55.
Rom. 16.16; 1 Cor. 16.20; 2 Cor. 13.12; 1 Thess. 5.26; 1 Pet. 5.14.
56.
For the discussion of women’s wealth and widowhood, see the fifth paragraph of the section ‘The Roles and Occupations of Women in the First Century’.
57.
Exod. 20.2. See also Exod. 13.3, 14; Deut. 5.6; 6.12; 7.8; 8.14; 13.5, 10; Judg. 6.8; Mic. 6.4.