Also central to the discussion is the meaning of the Greek word thrēskeia in Col 2:18. F. O. Francis argues that in 4 Macc 5:7 and Josephus Ant. 12.253 the word thrēskeia is used for the “worship” that belongs to the Jews, not worship of the Jews. He applies it similarly to Col 2:18 as meaning “worship” belonging to the angels, i.e., worship performed by the angels.79 Clinton Arnold correctly notes, however, that “A survey of the usage of thrēskeia fails to turn up one example of a divine being, or a typical object of worship . . . related to thrēskeia in the genitive case that should be taken as a subjective genitive.”80 While this may be true, we have already documented evidence of seers claiming to have partaken of heavenly worship with angelic beings. What is more, Arnold’s otherwise erudite study flounders on the observation that thrēskeia was not used in any of the magical incantations involving angels that he cites and there is no reference to incantations over angelic names in Colossians.81 Alternatively, Loren Stuckenbruck points out there is no need to choose absolutely between an objective genitive (“worshipping the angels”) and a subjective genitive (“worship performed by the angels”) because if someone is insisting on the benefits attained by seeing angelic worship, then they are also attributing something special and majestic to the angels themselves. The problem is not only the superfluity of the ritual and vision for the believer, but also the temptation to venerate angels encountered in the ascent.82 In fact, gaining access to worship of the angels by ascetic practices and appeasing the angels by law observance are not mutually exclusive.
A further factor in favor of defining the philosophy as tied with Jewish mysticism is the use of the word embateuō in 2:18. The word, though ambiguous, seems to be linked to visionary reports of “entering into” or “going into detail about” heavenly ascents and what is seen therein (see 1 En. 14:9).83 Persons in Colossae are perhaps boasting about the worship of the angels that they have seen upon entrance into the heavenly realm and subsequently venerating the angels that accompanied them in their tour of the heavenly court. A plausible scenario, then, is that the teachers advocated the necessity of ascetic practices leading to visionary experiences resulting in one sharing in the angelic liturgies of heaven, submitting to angelic “rulers and authorities,” who exercised some form of power over them through law observance, and translating all of this into their every day pattern of life (2:8–10, 16–23). The role of angels in the Colossian philosophy may not be clear-cut since their roles in veneration, mediation, or domination could overlap. What seems likely is that the Colossian philosophy represents a combination of the ascetic-mystical piety of Jewish apocalypticism with its emphasis on visionary experiences of heavenly ascents (an incipient form of merkabah mysticism), the dualism of Hellenistic cosmology and anthropology, and perhaps the veneration of angels influenced by local pagan folk religions involving appeal to angels through magic; all of these are possibilities for comprising elements of the philosophy.
Another element of the Colossian philosophy that I wish to advocate is its tacit missionary function. One or more persons from Colossae or the Lycus Valley is commending Judaism to the Gentile Christians in Colossae by using the religious ritual of ascetic-mystic Judaism and the language of Hellenistic philosophy (most likely Stoicism of some form) as a means of attracting them to it. Harald Hegermann argues that the Colossians were being exposed to Jewish missionary propaganda,84 and while I reject the idea of widespread Jewish missionary activity, nonetheless, I think here it has something going for it. Jewish communities did attract proselytes and many Jews wrote philosophical defenses of their faith for largely Jewish audiences but potentially for Gentile readers as well. Many Gentiles did convert to Judaism and in numbers high enough to alarm the cultural elites.85 Gentile adherents to Jewish ways, sometimes known as God-fearers, do not seem to have been an infrequent occurrence either.86 James Dunn argues that the Colossian philosophy represents the apologia (philosophical defense) of a local synagogue responding to the rise of a form of messianic Judaism in their immediate circle.87 If the best type of defense is offense, then perhaps a circle of Jewish teachers from a local synagogue immersed in Jewish mystical traditions and Hellenistic thought have come into contact with Christians in Colossae and are commending this form of “Judaism” to them. Their criticism of Christianity and Jesus Christ may even be benign in down playing rather than denying him a heavenly role. They condemn those who do not keep the regulations of Torah, they claim a share in the inheritance of Israel, and insist that the Colossian Christians undertake the ascetic rigor required for heavenly visions.88 This scenario provides an appropriate background to the Colossian philosophy and explains the socio-rhetorical dynamics of the letter. This accounts for the Jewish character of the philosophy as well as the Hellenistic terminology in which it is expressed. The philosophy, as it is written about in the letter to the Colossians, arguably represents an attempt by one or more Jewish individuals to recruit Christian Gentiles to a form of Jewish belief and practice through a highly contextualized missionary approach. The absence of a concerted polemic against circumcision (though perhaps implied in 2:11; 3:11; and 4:11) by Paul may be said to count against that hypothesis. But I suggest that the polemical references to circumcision, spiritual or physical, could hardly be heard as any other than an intra-Jewish debate stemming from factional rivalries over the nature and boundaries of Jewish identity. What is more, not all forms of Jewish missionary activity were necessarily said to be after “full” converts. Some Jewish perspectives on conversion did not require circumcision (see especially Josephus Ant. 20.41 and Philo QE 2.2) and only sought partial adherents and philosophical respect for its beliefs and practices in a wider intellectual forum. Whereas Lohse argues that the sacramental initiation was made more attractive by dressing it up in a Jewish term,89 I think the reverse holds, viz., an essentially Jewish religious tradition is being dressed in a garb of Hellenistic philosophy and language, thus appealing to Gentile believers who were formerly pagans in the religious smorgasbord of the Lycus Valley.
The Situation Behind the Epistle to Philemon
So far we have tentatively concluded that the letter to Philemon was written during 55–56 CE during Paul’s imprisonment in Ephesus. It was composed due to the estrangement between Onesimus and Philemon, which, after Paul’s intervention, resulted in Philemon releasing Onesimus to Paul’s care and service. Some time thereafter, Onesimus and Tychicus were dispatched to the Lycus Valley to deliver the letters to the Colossians and Laodiceans (Ephesians).90
It is hard to say much about Paul’s relationship to Philemon and Onesimus because we know very little of the specifics. Philemon was evidently a well-to-do Christian in a small Phyrigan town of the Lycus Valley in Asia Minor, he was a slave owner, and a church met in his house which was