Thanks, Perry, for replying to my surprise that any MSS. claimed that
Apphia (and not Phileomon) was owner of Onesimus. Your message was:
----------------------
In regards to my noting that some scribes evidently thought Apphia (and not
Philemon) to have been the owner of Onesimus, Edward Hobbs noted:
> Never heard of the "Apphia" subscriptions, and never seen it in any MS.
> If they exist, could a list of the MSS. be posted? That would be very
> interesting indeed.
According to the apparatus of my NA27, L 326 1241 al ("alii", which I take
to be more than "a few" (pauci) but less than "a number" (permulti)) have
the subscription PROS PHILHMONA KAI APPHIAN DESPOTAS TOU ONHSIMOU KAI PROS
ARCHIPPON TON DIAKON THS EN KOLOSSAIS EKKLAHSIAS.
--------------------
Thanks, Perry, but no thanks! Look at the Greek again: DESPOTAS is MASC.
PLURAL, and thus the subscript can only mean that Philemon AND Apphia
were owners of Onesimus--precisely the common view, which usually sees
Apphia as Philemon's wife (which may well be the case). But Apphia (alone)
as slave-owner? I'm still waiting and wondering.
This (late) subscript would of course, if original with Paul, eliminate
Knox's theory, since it makes Archippus the "minister" of the Colossian
church. But, if Knox is right, then the comment in Col. 4:17 (if by Paul!)
suggests that Archippus, slave-owner in Laodicea, not only has the pressure
of his fellow-Christians in Laodicea urging him to free Onesimus, but also
the Christians from neighboring Colosse, who have been asked to read the
letter "from Laodicea" (i.e., "Philemon"), urging him to "fulfil his
DIAKONIA (which of course is to free Onesimus, not to be "miister" in
Colosse). As I always tell my students, if this isn't what happened,
it SHOULD have! It is the most romantic story in the New Testament!
Edward Hobbs