Footnote 674:
I take the view that the κυρία addressed in the Second Epistle of St
John is some church personified, as indeed the whole tenour of the
epistle seems to imply: see esp. vv. 4, 7 sq. The salutation to the
‘elect lady’ (ver. 1) from her ‘elect sister’ (ver. 15) will then be a
greeting sent to one church from another; just as in 1 Peter, the
letter is addressed at the outset ἐκλεκτοῖς Πόντου κ.τ.λ. (i. 1) and
contains at the close a salutation from ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή (v.
13).
Footnote 675:
vv. 5, 7.
Footnote 676:
_Apost. Const._ vii. 46 τῆς δὲ ἐν Φρυγίᾳ Λαοδικείας [ἐπίσκοπος]
Ἄρχιππος, Κολασσάεων δὲ Φιλήμων, Βεροίας δὲ τῆς κατὰ Μακεδονίαν
Ὀνήσιμος ὁ Φιλήμονος. The Greek _Menæa_ however make Philemon bishop
of Gaza; see Tillemont I. p. 574 note lxvi.
Footnote 677:
See Tillemont I. pp. 290, 574, for the references.
[Sidenote: 2. Apphia his wife.]
2. It is a safe inference from the connexion of the names that Apphia
was the wife of Philemon[678]. The commentators assume without misgiving
that we have here the familiar Roman name Appia, though they do not
explain the intrusion of the aspirate[679]. This seems to be a mistake.
[Sidenote: A strictly Phrygian name.]The word occurs very frequently on
Phrygian inscriptions as a proper name, and is doubtless of native
origin. At Aphrodisias and Philadelphia, at Eumenia and Apamea Cibotus,
at Stratonicea, at Philomelium, at Æzani and Cotiæum and Dorylæum, at
almost all the towns far and near, which were either Phrygian or subject
to Phrygian influences, and in which any fair number of inscriptions has
been preserved, the name is found. If no example has been discovered at
Colossæ itself, we must remember that not a single proper name has been
preserved on any monumental inscription at this place. It is generally
written either Apphia or Aphphia[680]; more rarely Aphia, which is
perhaps due merely to the carelessness of the stonecutters[681].
[Sidenote: Its affinities]But, so far as I have observed, it always
preserves the aspirate. Its diminutive is Apphion or Aphphion or
Aphion[682]. The allied form Aphphias or Aphias, also a woman’s name, is
found, though less commonly[683]; and we likewise frequently meet with
the shorter form Apphe or Aphphe[684]. The man’s name corresponding to
Apphia is Apphianos, but this is rare[685]. The root would appear to be
some Phrygian term of endearment or relationship[686]. [Sidenote: and
analogies.]It occurs commonly in connexion with other Phrygian names of
a like stamp, more especially Ammia, which undergoes the same
modifications of form, Amia, Ammias, Ammion or Amion, Ammiane or
Ammiana, with the corresponding masculine Ammianos[687]. With these we
may also compare Tatia, Tatias, Tation, Tatiane or Tatiana, Tatianos.
Similar too is the name Papias or Pappias, with the lengthened form
Papianos, to which corresponds the feminine Papiane[688]. So again we
have Nannas or Nanas, Nanna or Nana, with their derivatives, in these
Phrygian inscriptions[689]. [Sidenote: Not to be confused with the Latin
Appia.]There is a tendency in some of the allied forms of Apphia or
Aphphia to drop the aspirate so that they are written with a _pp_, more
especially in Appe[690], but not in the word itself; nor have I observed
conversely any disposition to write the Roman name Appia with an
aspirate, Apphia or Aphphia[691]. Even if such a disposition could be
proved, the main point for which I am contending can hardly be
questioned. With the overwhelming evidence of the inscriptions before
us, it is impossible to doubt that Apphia is a native Phrygian
name[692].
Footnote 678:
Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3814 Νέικανδρος καὶ Ἀφφία γυνὴ αὐτοῦ. In the
following inscriptions also a wife bearing the name Apphia (Aphphia,
Aphia) or Apphion (Aphphion, Aphion) is mentioned in connexion with
her husband; 2720, 2782, 2836, 3446, 2775 b, c, d, 2837 b, 3849, 3902
m, 3962, 4141, 4277, 4321 f, 3846 z^{17}, etc.
M. Renan (_Saint Paul_ p. 360) says, ‘Appia, diaconesse de cette
ville’. Like other direct statements of this same writer, as for
instance that the Colossians sent a deputation to St Paul
(_L’Antechrist_ p. 90), this assertion rests on no authority.
Footnote 679:
They speak of Ἀπφία as a softened form of the Latin _Appia_, and quote
Acts xxviii. 15, where however the form is Ἀππίου. Even Ewald writes
the word Appia.
Footnote 680:
Ἀπφία, no. 2782, 2835, 2950, 3432, 3446, 2775 b, c, d, 2837 b, 3902 m,
3962, 4124, 4145: Ἀφφία, no. 3814, 4141, 4277, 4321 f, 3827 l, 3846 z,
3846 z^{17}. So far as I could trace any law, the form Ἀφφία is
preferred in the northern and more distant towns like Æzani and
Cotiæum, while Ἀπφία prevails in the southern towns in the more
immediate neighbourhood of Colossæ, such as Aphrodisias. This accords
with the evidence of our MSS, in which Ἀπφία is the best supported
form, though Ἀφφία is found in some. In Theod. Mops. (Cramer’s _Cat._
p. 105) it becomes Ἀμφία by a common corruption; and Old Latin copies
write the dative _Apphiadi_ from the allied form _Apphias_.
The most interesting of these inscriptions mentioning the name is no.
2782 at Aphrodisias, where there is a notice of Φλ. Ἀπφίας ἀρχιερείας
Ἀσίας, μητρὸς καὶ ἀδελφῆς καὶ μάμμης συγκλητικῶν, φιλοπάτριδος κ.τ.λ.
Footnote 681:
no. 2720, 3827.
Footnote 682:
Ἄπφιον or Ἄφφιον 2733, 2836, 3295, 3849, 3902 m, 4207; Ἄφιον 3846
z^{34} and Ἄφειον 3846 z^{31}; and even Ἄφφειν, 3167, 3278. In 3902 m
the mother’s name is Ἀπφία and the daughter’s Ἄπφιον.
Footnote 683:
Ἀφφίας, 3697, 3983; Ἀφίας 3879.
Footnote 684:
Ἄφφη 3816, 3390, 4143; Ἄπφη 3796, 4122.
Footnote 685:
It is met with at the neighbouring town of Hierapolis, in the form
Ἀπφίανος no. 3911. It also occurs on coins of not very distant parts
of Asia Minor, being written either Ἀπφίανος or Ἀφφίανος; Mionnet III.
p. 179, 184, IV. p. 65, 67, _Suppl._ VI. p. 293, VII. p. 365.
Footnote 686:
Suidas Ἄπφα: ἀδελφῆς καὶ ἀδελφοῦ ὑποκόρισμα, and so Bekk. _Anecd._ p.
441. Eustath. _Il._ p. 565 says ἄπφαν τὴν ἀδελφὴν Ἀττικῶς μόνη ἡ
ἀδελφὴ εἴποι ἂν, καὶ πάππαν τὸν πατέρα μόνος ὁ παῖς κ.τ.λ., and he
adds ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ὡς ἐρρέθη ἄπφα γίνεται καὶ τὸ ἄπφιον,
ὑποκόρισμα ὂν ἐρωμένης· τινὲς δὲ καὶ τὸ ἄπφα ὑποκόρισμα φασὶν Ἀττικόν.
These words were found in writers of Attic comedy (Pollux iii. 74 ἡ
παρὰ τοῖς νέοις κωμῳδοῖς ἀπφία καὶ ἀπφίον καὶ ἀπφάριον; comp.
Xenarchus τοὺς μὲν γέροντας ὄντας ἐπικαλούμεναι πατρίδια, τοὺς δ’
ἀπφάρια, τοὺς νεωτέρους, Meineke _Fragm. Com._ III. p. 617): and
doubtless they were heard commonly in Attic homes. But were they not
learnt in the nursery from Phrygian slaves? Ἀπφάριον appears in two
inscriptions almost as a proper name, 2637 Κλαυδία ἀπφάριον, 3277
ἀπφάριον Λολλιανή. In no. 4207 (at Telmissus) we have Ἑλένη ἡ καὶ
Ἄφφιον, so that it seems sometimes to have been employed side by side
with a Greek name; comp. no. 3912 a Παπίας ... ὁ καλούμενος Διογένης,
quoted above p. 48. This will account for the frequency of the names,
Apphia, Apphion, etc. In Theocr. XV. 13 we have ἀπφῦς, and in Callim.
_Hym. Dian._ 6 ἄππα, as a term of endearment applied to a father.
Footnote 687:
This appears from the fact that Ammias and Ammianos appear sometimes
as the names of mother and son respectively in the same inscriptions;
e.g. 3846 z^{82}, 3847 k, 3882 i.
Footnote 688:
On the name Papias or Pappias see above p. 48.
Footnote 689:
See Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ III. p. 1085 for the names Νάνας, etc.
Footnote 690:
We have not only the form Ἄππη several times (e.g. 3827 x, 3846 p,
3846 x, 3846 z^{46}, etc.); but also Ἄππης 3827 g, 3846 n, 3846 z^{77},
still as a woman’s name. These all occur in the same neighbourhood, at
Cotiæum and Æzani. I have not noticed any instance of this phenomenon
in the names Apphia, Apphion; though probably, where Roman influences
were especially strong, there would be a tendency to transform a
Phrygian name into a Roman, e.g. Apphia into Appia, and Apphianus into
Appianus.
Footnote 691:
In the Greek historians of Rome for instance the personal name is
always Ἄππιος and the road Ἀππία; so too in Acts xxviii. 15 it is
Ἀππίου Φόρον.
Footnote 692:
The point to be observed is that examples of these names are thickest
in the heart of Phrygia, that they diminish in frequency as Phrygian
influence becomes weaker, and that they almost, though not entirely,
disappear in other parts of the Greek and Roman world.
[Sidenote: Her share in the letter.]
Of this Phrygian matron we know nothing more than can be learnt from
this epistle. The tradition or fiction which represents her as martyred
together with her husband may be safely disregarded. St Paul addresses
her as a Christian[693]. Equally with her husband she had been aggrieved
by the misconduct of their slave Onesimus, and equally with him she
might interest herself in the penitent’s future well-being.
Footnote 693:
ver. 2 τῇ ἀδελφῇ. See the note.
[Sidenote: 3. Archippus, the son.]
3. With less confidence, but still with a reasonable degree of
probability, we may infer that Archippus, who is likewise mentioned in
the opening salutation, was a son[694] of Philemon and Apphia. The
inscriptions do not exhibit the name in any such frequency either in
Phrygia or in the surrounding districts, as to suggest that it was
characteristic of these parts[695]. [Sidenote: His office]Our Archippus
held some important office in the Church[696]; but what this was, we are
not told. St Paul speaks of it as a ‘ministry’ (διακονία). Some have
interpreted the term technically as signifying the diaconate; but St
Paul’s emphatic message seems to imply a more important position than
this. Others again suppose that he succeeded Epaphras as bishop of
Colossæ, when Epaphras left his native city to join the Apostle at
Rome[697]; but the assumption of a regular and continuous episcopate in
such a place as Colossæ at this date seems to involve an anachronism.
More probable than either is the hypothesis which makes him a presbyter.
Or perhaps he held a missionary charge, and belonged to the order of
‘evangelists[698].’ Another question too arises respecting Archippus.
Where was he exercising this ministry, whatever it may have been? At
Colossæ, or at Laodicea? [Sidenote: and abode,]His connexion with
Philemon would suggest the former place. But in the Epistle to the
Colossians his name is mentioned immediately after the salutations to
the Laodiceans and the directions affecting that Church; and this fact
seems to connect him with Laodicea. [Sidenote: Laodicea, rather than
Colossæ.]On the whole this appears to be the more probable
solution[699]. Laodicea was within walking distance of Colossæ[700].
Archippus must have been in constant communication with his parents, who
lived there; and it was therefore quite natural that, writing to the
father and mother, St Paul should mention the son’s name also in the
opening address, though he was not on the spot. An early tradition, if
it be not a critical inference from the allusion in the Colossian
letter, makes him bishop not of Colossæ, but of Laodicea[701].
Footnote 694:
So Theodore of Mopsuestia. But Chrysostom ἕτερόν τινα ἴσως φιλόν, and
Theodoret ὁ δὲ Ἄρχιππος τὴν διδασκαλίαν αὐτῶν ἐπεπίστευτο.
Footnote 695:
It occurs in two Smyrnæan inscriptions, no. 3143, 3224.
Footnote 696:
Col. iv. 17 βλέπε τὴν διακονίαν ἣν παρέλαβες ἐν Κυρίῳ, ἵνα αὐτὴν
πληροῖς.
Footnote 697:
So the Ambrosian Hilary on Col. iv. 17.
Footnote 698:
Ephes. iv. 11 bears testimony to the existence of the office of
evangelist at this date.
Footnote 699:
It is adopted by Theodore of Mopsuestia. On the other hand Theodoret
argues against this view on critical grounds; τινὲς ἔφασαν τοῦτον
Λαοδικείας γεγενῆσθαι διδάσκαλον, ἀλλ’ ἡ πρὸς Φιλήμονα ἐπιστολὴ
διδάσκει ὡς ἐν Κολασσαῖς οὗτος ᾤκει· τῷ γὰρ Φιλήμονι καὶ τοῦτον
συντάττει: but he does not allege any traditional support for his own
opinion.
Footnote 700:
See above pp. 2, 15.
Footnote 701:
_Apost. Const._ vii, 46 quoted above p. 372, note 676.
[Sidenote: His career.]
Of the apprehensions which the Apostle seems to have entertained
respecting Archippus, I have already spoken[702]. It is not improbable
that they were suggested by his youth and inexperience. St Paul here
addresses him as his ‘fellow-soldier[703],’ but we are not informed on
what spiritual campaigns they had served in company. Of his subsequent
career we have no trustworthy evidence. Tradition represents him as
having suffered martyrdom at Colossæ with his father and mother.
Footnote 702:
See p. 42.
Footnote 703:
ver. 2 τῷ συνστρατίωτῃ ἡμῶν. See the note.
[Sidenote: 4. Onesimus.]
4. But far more important to the history of Christianity than the
parents or the son of the family, is the servant. The name Onesimus was
very commonly borne by slaves. Like other words signifying utility,
worth, and so forth, it naturally lent itself to this purpose[704].
Accordingly the inscriptions offer a very large number of examples in
which it appears as the name of some slave or freedman[705]; [Sidenote:
A servile name.]and even where this is not the case, the accompaniments
frequently show that the person was of servile descent, though he might
never himself have been a slave[706]. Indeed it occurs more than once as
a fictitious name for a slave[707], a fact which points significantly to
the social condition naturally suggested by it. In the inscriptions of
proconsular Asia it is found[708]; but no stress can be laid on this
coincidence, for its occurrence as a proper name was doubtless
coextensive with the use of the Greek language. More important is the
fact that in the early history of Christianity it attains some eminence
in this region. [Sidenote: Its prominence among the Christians of
proconsular Asia.]One Onesimus is bishop of Ephesus in the first years
of the second century, when Ignatius passes through Asia Minor on his
way to martyrdom, and is mentioned by the saint in terms of warm
affection and respect[709]. Another, apparently an influential layman,
about half a century later urges Melito bishop of Sardis to compile a
volume of extracts from the scriptures; and to him this father dedicates
the work when completed[710]. Thus it would appear that the memory of
the Colossian slave had invested the name with a special popularity
among Christians in this district.
Footnote 704:
e.g. Chresimus, Chrestus, Onesiphorus, Symphorus, Carpus, etc. So too
the corresponding female names Onesime, Chreste, Sympherusa, etc.: but
more commonly the women’s names are of a different cast of meaning,
Arescusa, Prepusa, Terpusa, Thallusa, Tryphosa, etc.
Footnote 705:
e.g. in the _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ III. p. 323, no. 2146, p. 359, no.
2723, p. 986, no. 6107 (where it is spelled Honesimus); and in
Muratori, CC. 6, DXXIX. 5, CMLXVIII. 4, MIII. 2, MDXVIII. 2, MDXXIII.
4, MDLI. 9, MDLXXI. 5, MDLXXV. 1, MDXCII. 8, MDXCVI. 7, MDCVI. 2,
MDCX. 19, MDCXIV. 17, 39; and the corresponding female name Onesime in
MCCXXXIX. 12, MDXLVI. 6, MDCXII. 9. A more diligent search than I have
made would probably increase the number of examples very largely.
Footnote 706:
e.g. _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ III. p. 238, no. 1467, D. M. M. AVR · ONESIMO
· CARPION · AVG · LIB · TABVL · FILIO. In the next generation any
direct notice of servile origin would disappear; but the names very
often indicate it. It need not however necessarily denote low
extraction: see e.g. Liv. xliv. 16.
Footnote 707:
Menander _Inc._ 312 (Meineke _Fragm. Com._ IV. p. 300), where the
Ὀνήσιμος addressed is a slave, as appears from the mention of his
τρόφιμος, i.e. master; Galen _de Opt. Doctr._ I (I. p. 41 ed. Kühn),
where there is a reference to a work of Phavorinus in which was
introduced one Onesimus ὁ Πλουτάρχου δοῦλος Ἐπικτήτῳ διαλεγόμενος;
_Anthol. Græc._ II. p. 161, where the context shows that the person
addressed as Onesimus is a slave; ib. II. p. 482, where the master,
leaving legacies to his servants, says Ὀνήσιμος εἵκοσι πέντε | μνᾶς
ἐχέτω Δάος δ’ εἰκοσι μνᾶς ἐχέτω· | πεντήκοντα Σύρος· Συνέτη δέκα,
κ.τ.λ. See also the use of the name in the Latin play quoted Suet.
_Galb._ 13 (according to one reading).
Footnote 708:
It occurs as near to Colossæ as Aphrodisias; Boeckh _C. I._ no. 2743.
Footnote 709:
Ign. _Ephes._ I. ἐν Ὀνησίμῳ τῷ ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἀδιηγήτῳ ὑμῶν δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ
ἐπισκόπῳ ... εὐλόγητος ὁ χαρισάμενος ὑμῖν ἀξίοις οὖσιν τοιοῦτον
ἐπίσκοπον κεκτῆσθαι; see also §§ 2, 5, 6.
Footnote 710:
Melito in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26 Μελίτων Ὀνησίμῳ τῷ ἀδελφῷ χαίρειν.
Ἐπειδὴ πολλάκις ἠξίωσας κ.τ.λ.
[Sidenote: Position and conduct of Onesimus.]
Onesimus represented the least respectable type of the least respectable
class in the social scale. He was regarded by philosophers as a ‘live
chattel’, a ‘live implement[711]’; and he had taken philosophy at her
word. He had done what a chattel or an implement might be expected to
do, if endued with life and intelligence. He was treated by the law as
having no rights[712]; and he had carried the principles of the law to
their logical consequences. He had declined to entertain any
responsibilities. There was absolutely nothing to recommend him. He was
a slave, and what was worse, a Phrygian slave; and he had confirmed the
popular estimate of his class[713] and nation[714] by his own conduct.
He was a thief and a runaway. His offence did not differ in any way, so
far as we know, from the vulgar type of slavish offences. He seems to
have done just what the representative slave in the Roman comedy
threatens to do, when he gets into trouble. He had ‘packed up some goods
and taken to his heels[715].’ Rome was the natural cesspool for these
offscourings of humanity[716]. In the thronging crowds of the metropolis
was his best hope of secresy. In the dregs of the city rabble he would
find the society of congenial spirits.
Footnote 711:
Aristot. _Pol._ i. 4 (p. 1253) ὁ δοῦλος κτῆμά τι ἔμψυχον, _Eth. Nic._
viii. 13 (p. 1161) ὁ γὰρ δοῦλος ἔμψυχον ὄργανον, τὸ δ’ ὄργανον ἄψυχος
δοῦλος. See also the classification of ‘implements’ in Varro, _de Re
rust._ I. 17. 1 ‘Instrumenti genus vocale et semivocale et mutum:
vocale, in quo sunt servi; semivocale, in quo boves; mutum, in quo
plaustra’.
Footnote 712:
Dig. iv. 5 ‘Servile caput nullum jus habet’ (Paulus); _ib._ l. 17 ‘In
personam servilem nulla cadit obligatio’ (Ulpianus).
Footnote 713:
Plaut. _Pseud._ I. 2, 6 ‘Ubi data occasiost, rape, clepe, tene,
harpaga, bibe, es, fuge; hoc eorum opust’; Ovid. _Amor._ i. 15. 17
‘Dum fallax servus’.
Footnote 714:
Cicero speaks thus of Phrygia and the neighbouring districts; _pro
Flacc._ 27 ‘Utrum igitur nostrum est an vestrum hoc proverbium
_Phrygem plagis fieri solere meliorem_? Quid de tota Caria? Nonne hoc
vestra voce vulgatum est; si quid cum periculo experiri velis, _in
Care_ id potissimum esse faciendum? Quid porro in Græco sermone tam
tritum est, quam si quis despicatui ducitur, ut _Mysorum ultimus_ esse
dicatur? Nam quid ego dicam de Lydia? Quis unquam Græcus comœdiam
scripsit in qua servus primarum partium non Lydus esset’: comp.
Alciphr. _Epist._ iii. 38 Φρύγα οἰκέτην ἔχω πονηρόν κ.τ.λ.; Apollod.
Com. (Meineke, IV. p. 451) οὐ πανταχοῦ Φρύξ εἰμι κ.τ.λ. This last
passage refers to the cowardice with which, besides all their other
bad qualities, the Phrygians were credited: comp. Anon. Com. (_ib._
IV. p. 652) δειλότερον λαγῶ Φρυγός, Tertull. _de Anim._ 20 ‘Comici
Phrygas timidos illudunt’: see Ribbeck _Com. Lat._ p. 106.
Footnote 715:
Ter. _Phorm._ i. 4. 13 ‘aliquid convasassem, atque hinc me protinam
conjicerem in pedes’.
Footnote 716:
Sall. _Cat._ xxxvii. 5 ‘Romam sicuti in sentinam confluxerant’: comp.
Tac. _Ann._ xv. 44.
[Sidenote: His encounter with St Paul in Rome]
But at Rome the Apostle spread his net for him, and he was caught in its
meshes. How he first came in contact with the imprisoned missionary, we
can only conjecture. Was it an accidental encounter with his
fellow-townsman Epaphras in the streets of Rome which led to the
interview? Was it the pressure of want which induced him to seek alms
from one whose large-hearted charity must have been a household word in
his master’s family? Or did the memory of solemn words, which he had
chanced to overhear at those weekly gatherings in the upper chamber at
Colossæ, haunt him in his loneliness, till, yielding to the fascination,
he was constrained to unburden himself to the one man who could soothe
his terrors and satisfy his yearnings? Whatever motive may have drawn
him to the Apostle’s side—whether the pangs of hunger or the gnawings of
conscience—when he was once within the range of attraction, he could not
escape. [Sidenote: and conversion.]He listened, was impressed, was
convinced, was baptized. The slave of Philemon became the freedman of
Christ[717]. St Paul found not only a sincere convert, but a devoted
friend, in his latest son in the faith. Aristotle had said that there
ought not to be, and could not be, any friendship with a slave _qua_
slave, though there might be _qua_ man[718]; and others had held still
stronger language to the same effect. The Apostle did not recognize the
philosopher’s subtle distinction. For him the conventional barrier
between slave and free had altogether vanished before the dissolving
presence of an eternal verity[719]. [Sidenote: St Paul’s affection for
him.]He found in Onesimus something more than a slave, a beloved brother
both as a slave and as a man, ‘both in the flesh and in the Lord[720].’
The great capacity for good which appears in the typical slave of Greek
and Roman fiction, notwithstanding all the fraud and profligacy
overlying it, was evoked and developed here by the inspiration of a new
faith and the incentive of a new hope. The genial, affectionate, winning
disposition, purified and elevated by a higher knowledge, had found its
proper scope. Altogether this new friendship was a solace and a strength
to the Apostle in his weary captivity, which he could ill afford to
forego. To take away Onesimus was to tear out Paul’s heart[721].
Footnote 717: