This thesis reinterprets the letter to Philemon as a letter exhorting a new loving relationship for a slave by applying Vernon Robbins’ socio-rhetorical interpretation framework in light of the new institutional economics. Based on the runaway hypothesis, the letter has long been read as written by Paul to beg Philemon’s forgiveness for Onesimus. This thesis argues that the runaway hypothesis is based on a biased view of the slave trade, as well as incomplete consideration of the first century slave-master relationship and Pauline theological and ethical thought; therefore, it is not sufficiently justified. In turn, we argue that, instead of approaching the text based on an a priori hypothesis or the occasion of the letter, the framework of socio-rhetorical analysis provides a step-by-step method for producing mutual dialogue between different disciplines to analyze the letter. / Beginning with an analysis of the inner texture, we can see—through the word analysis, epistolary analysis, and rhetorical analysis—that a relational problem is the major concern of the letter. The analysis also demonstrates that there is a need to incorporate other textures to help them understand what problem is more likely for Paul to address and what ground he bases this on in the letter. Then, in chapter 3, we investigate the theological and ethical thought of Paul as an intertextual texture. With Paul’s theological thought in mind, reconstructed from his other undisputed letters, we can start to re-read Phlm through the structure of love. The intertextual texture helps us to see how Paul would see the problem and how to read the letter in light of Paul’s understanding of love. At the end of the chapter, we also see the need for a contextual analysis of Roman slavery to provide us with a more specific explanation of the slave-master relationship in light of the apparently contradictory practice and the complicated institutions that upheld Roman slavery. / In chapter 4, we first argue the relevance and applicability of NIE to help us to analyze Roman slavery. Then, we introduce the framework of new institutional economics (NIE), arguing that it can give a more comprehensive explanation of how ideology, law and institutions related to Roman slavery together served the economic interests of slave owners. These insights from NIE will be brought into the interpretation process in a socio-rhetorical framework. Based on the three textures— inner texture, intertexture, and economic texture—chapter 5 will show that the body of the letter exhorts a transformation of the relationship from economics to one of loving brotherhood, from master and slave to the household of the church. More specifically, we will demonstrate how Paul argues rhetorically both for a loving relationship and against the slave-master economic relationship. / 本論文是利用弗農羅賓斯(Vernon Robbins)社會修辭批判學(Socio-rhetorical interpretation)的框架，配合新制度經濟理論對羅馬奴隸制度分析的貢獻，對腓利門書提出一個新的解釋。本文的主旨是，腓利門書一方面不是一封為一個逃走奴隸而寫的求情信，相反是保羅根據他一貫的神學及倫理思維而向腓利門提出的一封勸告信，希望腓利門能根據過往保羅對愛的教導，修正他與阿雷西母的關係，由原來由經濟主導的奴僕關係，轉化成由愛主導的弟兄關係。 / 本文由文本研究層(inner texture)開始，透過字詞、書信格式及修辭分析，初步總結出，保羅在這信中的重心是要處理由阿雷西母回到腓利門的家所引申的關係衝突問題。但同時在這章亦指出，單從文本分析是不足的，要提出一個新的解釋，我們必須依賴另外兩個研究層來幫助分析文本所沒有提供的資料及保羅的立場。本文的第三章是文本互參研究層(intertextual texture)，這研究層主要是透過保羅其他另外六卷沒有爭議的書信來重構保羅在有關方面的神學與倫理思想，再利用這結構來幫助理解保羅如何理解信中隱含的問題，及解釋信中保羅提出的理據。在這章的結論我們亦會提出，我們需要另一個研究向度來幫助我們更深入地理解在第一世紀時的奴僕關係。 / 第四章是本論文其中一個主要的貢獻，就是利用經濟研究層(economic texture)，來幫助處理錯綜複雜的奴僕關係。本研究層主要是利用新制度經濟理論來分析在羅馬不同層次的制度中，如何互相配合地來幫助奴隸主人及整個社會，利用奴隸不同方面的經濟功用，來達致其最大經濟效益。本章首先論述利用新制度經濟理論來研究第一世紀奴隸制度的合法性，繼而利用該理論分析有關奴隸制度的正式與非正式的制度(formal and informal institutions)，當中包括當時的宏觀經濟狀況、哲學、法律制度及用來管理奴隸的主要合約條件。最後，我們會利用這章的分析來總結出當時由經濟考慮而主導的奴隸關係的主要特徵。 / 第五章是綜合二、三及四章的研究所得，對腓利門書的主要勸導部分進行重讀。本章首先會利用各章的結論重構保羅在這信要處理的問題，最後，會總結出這信是一方面透過勸導腓利門有關愛的關係的重要，另一方面針對當時根深柢固由經濟主導的奴僕關係，來勸導腓利門選擇改變他與阿雷西母的關係。 / Ip, Hon Ho. / Thesis Ph.D. Chinese University of Hong Kong 2014. / Includes bibliographical references. / Abstracts also in Chinese. / Title from PDF title page (viewed on 06, October, 2016). / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only.