panes is strikingly like that of the other auline Epp., and especially Eph, Col, Ph, the
Epp. of the first Roman captivity.
vy. An obvious link connecting the letter with Colossians is supplied by the proper names which occur in both istles. Both purport to come from ‘Paul and Timothy’; while writing both Paul is in captivity; in both Archippus is greeted (v.1, Col 417); Aristarchus, Mark, paphras, Luke, Demas join in the salutations with which the letters conclude; Onesimus a ‘ beloved brother’ is to be the bearer of both letters, accompanied as it would seem by Tychicus (v.'*, Col 4’). With this agrees the fact that no greeting to Philemon is found in Colossians, because to him a separate letter had been addressed. And as Ephesians and Colossians were intrusted to the same messenger, viz. Tychicus (Eph 6”, Col 4”), we are led to the.con- clusion that the three Epistles, Eph, Col, Philem, were written at the same time and under the same circumstances. (See EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO).
A determination of the place of writing will help us to determine the time. As St. Paul was in captivity, the letter must have been written sither from Caesarea (Ac 24-26) or from Rome (Ac 28"). Tradition is all in favour of Rome, and the α priori arguments which have been alleged on the side of Cesarea are untrustworthy.
Thus (a) it has been urged that Cmsarea being nearer to Colossw than Rome, it would be more natural that Onesimus should fly there. But, on the contrary, a fugitive could more easily hide himself in the great metropolis. (Ὁ) If Eph, Col, Philem were carried by the same messenger from Rome, he would arrive first at Ehesos, and yet in Eph we find no commendation of Onesimus. This {s explicable only, it has wi
been su on the hypothesis that Onesimus was no longer th Tychicus, having ΠΕ τὰ at his destination (Colossm) be- fore
messengers reached Ephesus. But this would involve
* ἐλλογᾷν (WH) occurs again in Ro 513 (TR in both ἐλλνγεῖν). VOL. 111.-το 53
PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO 835
an approach from Cxsarea rather than Rome. It is a sufficient answer to this that arguments 6 silentio are very untrust- worthy, and that no reason has been assigned why ἃ slave like Onesimus should be singled out for mention in a letter toa Church where he was not known. (6) Philem @ suggests that St. Paul intended to go direct to Colossm, while Ph 2% speaks herd intention of Boing to Macedonia. This would suggest a starting-point south of Colossw, so that that place mi coche aed πὶ Macedonia. ξ ——
ut we do not know how far the apostle’s plans were modi- fied in the interval between the ΝΣ ἦε Philemon and Philippians, nor is there any reason why he should not have proceeded from Rome to Colossw vid Philippi.
_ The positive arguments, independent of tradi- tion, in favour of Rome are slight. E.g. from Eph 6” it appears that St. Paul had a certain amount of freedom while in captivity, which is hardly consistent with what we know of his im- risonment at Czsarea and of the dangers to which
e was there exposed (Ac 237; but ci. 24%). But leaving that aside, there is at least nothing to forbid us to acquiesce in the traditional belief that it was in Rome that the apostle wrote the three letters Eph, Col, Philem, as it is evidently the place from which he wrote the kindred Epistle to the Philippians (Ph 1% 4”; cf. PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO).
The question as to the priority of Philippians to the group Eph, Col, Philem, is difficult, and there is not a great deal of evidence available. Lightfoot, Sanday (see Smith’s DB? i. 627), and Hort (Rom. and Eph. p. 102) ce as the view that Philippians was written earlier than Eph, Col, Philem ; but the opposite opinion, that it is the latest of the Epp. of the first Roman captivity, has also many defenders, ¢.g. Zahn (Linleit. i. 386, 392), Gwynn (Speaker's Comm.), and Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, p. 358), and on the whole it seems to the present writer the more probable.
The reasons for this opinion are the following : («) It seems from a comparison of Eph with Ph that the conditions of the apostle’s imprisonment are represented as more rigorous in the latter Ep. than in the former, which contemplates a state of things like that portrayed in Ac 289°31, On the other hand, when Ph was written, he has been put on his trial, and forced to make his ἀπολογία (cf. Ph 1166. 217.3), (8) Again. δ comparison of Philem 33 (ἐλπίζω γὰρ ori διὰ τῶν προσινχὼν ὑμῶν χαρισθήσομαι ὑμῖν) With Ph 224 (τέ σο,ϑα iv κυρίῳ Ors καὶ αὐτὸς τα χίως ἐλεύσομαι.) taken in connexion with the joyful tone of Ph, despite the trials which the writer has endured, poicts to the fact that he was much more confident of his release when Ph was written than at the period of writing Philem, and this would naturally arise from the fact that his trial, which had not come on before the group of letters Eph, Col, Philem was d tched, was in progress and was already so far ad-
anced that he could predict the issue with some confidence. (y) Too much has been made of the fact that Luke and Aris- tarchus who join in the salutation to the Colossians and to Philemon are not named in Ph, for they are not named in Eph either. Yet still it falls in with the hypothesis that they had departed before Ph was written; and indeed Ph 2™ (‘I have no man likeminded [se. with Timothy) who will care truly for your state’) seems to make it certain that when Ph was di tched the companions who are named in Col, Eph, Philem had departed from the side of the apostle. The only positive argument of any weight which has n urged on the other side is that the similarities between Ro and Ph are much closer than between Ro and Eph, Col, Philemon. Lightfoot, in par- ticular, urges tnat Philippians resembles the earlier rather than the later group of Piuline letters, and that therefore it must be placed before Eph, Col, Philemon. Sach an argument has little force, for on any hypothesis the interval which separ- ates Eph, Col, Philem from Ph is too brief to account for any marked change in style, supposing such to exist. And, on the other side, the undoubted parallels between Ph and the Pastoral Epp. may be brought forward (cf. ¢g. 1% and 24) with 2 Ti 46, 45 with 1 Ἢ 38, 12 with Tit 14, 113. © with 1 ΤΊ 4)