Of what place could these facts be spoken ? The three main points are (1) his imprisonment, (2) Prsetorium, (3) Ciesar's household.
(1) St. Paul tvas often in prison (2 Co 11^) : in Philippi itself (Ac 16-"), in C*sarea (Ac 23), and in Rome (Ac 28). According to Clement (ad Bom. i.
PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 223
56), he was no fewer than seven times in gaol : Jii f^Xov Kal IpLv IlaCXor t>iro,uoi'^s ^pa^dov iviSei^ev, ^TTTd/cij Siafia. (popi(ra!. Jerusalem and Pliilippi are ruled out, but there still remain the possibilities of Rome, Ca?sarea, and Ephesus if we can be sure of an imprisonment there. The fact of imprisonment then is not decisive.
(2) P>(eiorium. — There is considerable divergence of opinion as to what this term means. Elsewliere it is used of the tower of Antonia (Mk 15'"), and of Herod's palace (Ac 23^°). It occurs nowhere else in St. Paul's writings. If a locality is meant (and this is not ruled out by the phrase Kai rois Xoiiron TrSffi ; cf. CIG i. 1770), then the term indicates some princely building, the residence of a prince or procurator. There is no evidence, however, that the Palatium — the Roman Imperial residence — was so called, although it is possible that a pro- vincial writing in Rome might loosely describe it by this term. Herod's residence where Felix stayed in Caesarea was a prsetorium. Or the re- ference is to the camp of the praetorian guards, built by Tiberius and situated at the Porta Vimin- alis. This is doubtful ; at any rate there seems no evidence to prove that this camp was called prce- torium (see Zahn, op. cit. i. 551).
It is possible, however, that the term is used of persons, and even so two views have found sup- porters : — (a) There is no doubt, after Lightfoot's researches, that the term ' prsetorium ' may mean the prcetorian guard, and it would admirably suit St. Paul's case in Rome as we learn that from Ac 28. (6) Mommsen, however, believes that the prcefectus{-i) prcetorii{-o) and associates are referred to, m which case the term would mean the legal authorities. Ramsay {St. Paul the Traveller, p. 357) agrees with this (but he has latterly given his opinion in favour of the praetorian guard). The objection to it is that a large body is referred to — ' in the whole prsetorium ' — and on the face of it this does not suit well the theory of the judicial authorities, nor is it clear that the term ' prretorium ' Hmpliciter was so used. We are thus restricted either to the meaning, ' the soldiers of the pra?torian guard ' or else ' the provincial residence of a pro- curator,' so that this term does not definitely decide the origin of the letter, although the preponderance of evidence is in favour of Rome.
(3) The saints of Ccesar^s household. — The mean- ing of this phrase seems clearly to be ' servants of the Imperial house,' not blood-relations of the Emperor. This appears to militate against the argument of many who uphold the Csesarean origin, who equate this term with the prsetorium ; on the other hand, it is possible that such slaves existed in provincial towns like Csesarea or Epiiesus. It is, however, a strong evidence in favour of Rome.
AVe are thus largely thrown back on the evidence furnished by the Apostle's condition at the time of writing, or on the relation of this letter to other letters whose origin we know. On this ground many have defended the Csesarean origin. St. Paul was undoubtedly in prison here for two years (Ac 23^), and in a prsetorium. He had been im- prisoned through Jewish hostility, and in Philip- pians (3'^-) he writes with bitterness of the Judaizers. But this is surely no argument, because St. Paul's experience of this hatred was so uniform that sucli an outburst as Ph 3 is explicable at any period in his career. It is said that we have no proof that Timothy was ever in Rome with St. Paul (outside the imprisonment letters), but have we any direct proof tliat he was with him in Csesarea? The greed of Felix was aroused, it is maintained, by the gift St. Paul received from Philippi. This involves a circvlus in probando. The impression given in Acts is that Felix thouglit St, Paul a man of standing and substance. H.
Bottger {Beitrage znr historisch-kritischen Ein- leitung in die paulinischen Brie/e, Gbttingen, 1837) urges strongly tliat we cannot conceive of such a delay in the judicial proceedings as is implied in the letter, taking place at Rome. It is sutHcient to refer to what Liglitfoot has .said to the contrary (Philipnians, p. 3ff. ; cf. also Neander, Planting and Training of the Christian Chtirch, Eng. tr'., 2 vols., London, 186-1-80, i. 312). The strongest argument against Rome is the stylistic and doctrinal — the ditlerence in doctrine and style between Philippians and both Colossians and Ephesians, and the affinities with Romans an<l 1 and 2 Corinthians. It was for this reason that Lightfoot, who gives an elaborate list of parallels between Philippians and Romans, placed our letter early in the Roman imprisonment in order to give time for doctrinal development, and Haupt also has felt the force of this argument .so keenly as to say : ' wenn nur die Annahme einer romischen Abfassung moglich ware, wiirde ich ohne weiteres die Echtheit der beiden Briefe preisgeben, obwolil die Annahme der romischen Abfassung bis in dies Jhdt. hinein die allgenieingiiltige gewesen und audi noch jetzt von einer grossen Anzahl von Gelehrten verteidigt ist.' He would give up unreservedly the genuineness of Colossians and Ephesians if he were compelled to regard them as written in Rome where Philippians was written, and that in spite of the fact that so many scholars still defend the Roman origin of all the three letters (Haupt in Meyer's Kommentai-'', p. 70).