Finding Onesimus: Recovering the Story of a First-Century Fugitive Slave

Author: Ryan Lokkesmoe Title: Finding Onesimus: Recovering the Story of a First-Century Fugitive Slave Advisor: Pamela Eisenbaum Degree Date: August 2015 ABSTRACT This dissertation is an investigation into the experience of a first-century fugitive slave named Onesimus, who is known to us primarily through Paul’s letter to Philemon (Phlm) in the New Testament. Within this broader purpose, this project challenges a popular historical theory for Onesimus’ flight, the so-called Amicus Domini theory. This is the theory that Onesimus fled his master Philemon with the premeditated intention of seeking out the Apostle Paul as a peacemaker in a conflict Onesimus was having with Philemon. The Amicus Domini theory is accepted by many scholars, though rarely discussed in detail or examined critically. The goal of this project is to offer a more probable historical reconstruction of Onesimus’ flight – one that takes better stock of the available evidence (historical, textual, archaeological, legal, and rhetorical). This project is rooted in the sub-discipline of the Historical Critical method, though rhetorical analysis is applied as well. This study offers a translation and commentary of Phlm, as well as an examination of Paul’s rhetoric in the letter. Other sources that specifically mention Onesimus are also investigated, e.g. Colossians, ancient Christian commentators, and the subscriptions in the manuscripts. The project also examines slavery in the Ancient Mediterranean world with a view toward understanding what most slaves experienced, and especially fugitive slaves. Roman law of slavery is also discussed, as well as the estimated travel times and cost of Onesimus’ journey (whether from Colossae to Rome, Caesarea Maritima, or Ephesus). There are many factors that are problematic for the Amicus Domini theory, e.g. the duration of Onesimus’ journey, the financial cost to Philemon, and the fact that the documents typically used to support the Amicus Domini theory (Pliny’s letters to Sabinianus and the writings of Roman jurists) do not comport with the data in Phlm. This dissertation offers a modified theory for Onesimus’ predicament: Amicus Domini Ex Post Facto. Onesimus did not leave Philemon intending to seek out Paul and reconcile with Philemon, but he eventually decided to seek help long after the fact. This historical reconstruction makes better sense of the evidence, and provides a clearer view of what Onesimus faced during his flight.

Wrestling With Tradition: Japanese Activities at Amache, a World War II Incarceration Facility

I employ archaeological analyses, archival research, and oral histories to investigate traditional Japanese practices that were performed at Amache, a World War II Japanese American incarceration facility. I argue that these inter-generational practices helped to bridge a cultural gap that existed between several generations of Japanese Americans. For many incarcerated Japanese Americans, their first exposure to many traditional activities occurred during incarceration. The resulting social environment incorporated aspects of Japanese, Japanese American, and mainstream American influences, all of which were adapted to conditions during incarceration. Similarly, archaeological analyses allow for the investigation of traditional practice features. These provide evidence regarding the significance of the adapted landscape at Amache. Evidence of these practices suggests Amache internees had both a strong desire to maintain and celebrate these aspects of their Japanese heritage but they also incorporated non-traditional elements that reflected the unique living conditions during incarceration. Incarceration, I argue, created an environment in which a unique internee consciousness was formed in which the use of traditional practices was a focal point. The physical remains of traditional practices allow archaeologists to determine aspects of this newly formed consciousness that are not readily apparent in historical documentation.

Causation and Harm in a Multicomponent World

On September 17, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued another decision in the epic Apple v. Samsung smartphone war. This was the fourth court decision in the ongoing saga to deal with injunctions. Apple IV explained the level of proof necessary to satisfy the "causal nexus" requirement. This requirement had emerged as a response to patent litigations involving products with thousands of features, the vast majority of which are unrelated to the asserted patent. To prove a causal nexus, patentees seeking an injunction have to do more than just show that the infringing product caused the patentee irreparable harm. The harm must be specifically attributable to the infringing feature. In Apple IV, the Federal Circuit noted that proving causation was "nearly impossible" in these multicomponent cases. So it decided to water down the causal nexus requirement saying that it was enough for Apple to show that the infringing features were "important"and customer sought these particular features. This lower standard is an ill-advised mistake that leaves multicomponent product manufacturers more susceptible to patent holdup. My critique takes two parts. First, I argue that a single infringing feature rarely, if ever, "causes" consumers to buy the infringer’s multicomponent products. The minor features at issue in Apple IV illustrate this point vividly. Thus, the new causal nexus standard does not accurately reflect how causation and harm operate in a multicomponent world. Second, I explain why the court was so willing to accept such little evidence of real injury. It improperly applied notions of traditional property law to patents. Specifically, the court viewed patent infringement as harmful regardless of any concrete consequences. This view may resonate for other forms of property where an owner's rights are paramount and a trespass is considered offensive in and of itself. But the same concepts do not apply to patent law where the Supreme Court has consistently said that private interests must take a back seat to the public good. Based on these principles, the courts should restore the "causal nexus" requirement and not presume causation.