Exploring Philemon: Freedom, Brotherhood, and Partnership in the New Society by Roy R. Jeal

Abstract

Reviewed by: Exploring Philemon: Freedom, Brotherhood, and Partnership in the New Society by Roy R. Jeal Alicia J. Batten roy r. jeal, Exploring Philemon: Freedom, Brotherhood, and Partnership in the New Society (Rhetoric of Religious Antiquity 2; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015). Pp. xxviii + 230. Paper $30.95. Roy R. Jeal has written one of the initial volumes of the Sociorhetorical Exploration Commentaries published in the Rhetoric of Religious Antiquity series. Sociorhetorical interpretation (SRI), which is defined not as a method but as an “interpretive analytic,” specifically engages the multiple “textures” of texts. These textures include inner texture, or the manner in which the text communicates; intertexture, or the ways in which the writing interacts with other texts, cultures, institutions outside of itself, as well as other textures including sacred texture, ideological texture, social and cultural texture, and sensory-aesthetic texture. The commentary also addresses “rhetography,” or the manner in which images and pictures are prompted in the minds of readers or listeners as the various textures of the text interact with one another, as well as “rhetorolects” or “emergent modes of discourse” (p. xxvii) that Christians used to express their faith and the significance of such faith for their lives. There are six major rhetorolects: wisdom, prophetic, apocalyptic, precreation, priestly, and miracle discourse. Fortunately, all of these textures and terms are defined in a glossary at the beginning of the book. Because Paul’s letter to Philemon is brief, J. states that he has the “luxury” (p. xviii) of addressing each verse of the letter multiple times using different lenses. In the introduction [End Page 715] J. indicates that the letter is deeply theological and pastoral. It is an example of the wisdom rhetorolect insofar as it focuses primarily on how early Christians were to live in the context of the ancient Mediterranean world based on their convictions that God is creator and Jesus is Lord and Christ. Christian wisdom rhetorolects developed out of a range of language and ideologies, notably those of the Israelite Scriptures, Jewish discourses, and wider Mediterranean modes of thought (p. 7) as they articulated how believers were to live together in community. Throughout the rest of the introduction J. explains his approach and addresses other issues, including the text of the letter and questions of canonicity, date, and the perennial mystery of what set of circumstances prompted Paul to write this letter in the first place. J. reviews most of the scenarios that have been posited or argued but concludes that one cannot determine exactly what set of events caused Paul to write to Philemon. Nor can we know the precise provenance or where Philemon lived, although J. leans toward Ephesus for the former and Colossae for the latter. Jeal then systematically works through the rhetography of the opening (vv. 1–7), middle (vv. 8–20), and closing (vv. 21–25) of the rhetoric of the letter. He follows the same divisions as he moves through his textural commentary, engaging multiple textures as well as the “rhetorical force as emergent discourse” in each section. Near the closing of the book he discusses his own ideology, as well as some of Paul’s ideologies, the ideology of the gospel, as well as the ideologies of love and faith, of eternity, and of abolitionism. One of the most contentious issues regarding this letter is the nature of what Paul is asking Philemon to do regarding Onesimus. Although J. admits that Paul is not explicit, he concludes, based upon his sociorhetorical analysis that the apostle wishes for Philemon to set Onesimus free. Paul wants Philemon to receive Onesimus as a brother in the context of the ekklēsia in which all members were brothers and sisters. This is a new space, a “revolutionary situation where social status is ignored in favor of love and partnership” (p. 162). Therefore, J. thinks that Paul was at least implying that Onesimus should be liberated, even if this did not mean much outside of the church. On this issue, it would be interesting to know how the insights of Mitzi Smith (“Utility, Fraternity, and Reconciliation: Ancient Slavery as a Context for the Return of Onesimus,” in Onesimus Our Brother: Reading Religion, Race...