But it is not clear that either of these views would in any way help us out of the difficulty, for on Lightfoot's view St. Paul changed his style within two years and his doctrine developed and deepened. Two years is too short a period for this. On Haupt's view St. Paul's profound style and doctrine in Colossians and Ephesians were due to his continenient in Cassarea when he had time to brood and ponder such as he had not before. This enforced inactivity deepened and widened his views of Christ. But the weakness of this explana- tion is that St. Paul again goes back in Philippians to the old simple style.
Recently, however, a theory has been advocated which seems to solve this difficulty. The theory is that Philippians was written from Ephesus, and the other imprisonment letters from Rome or Csesarea (so M. Albertz, in ^A' iv. [1910] 551 «'.). Thus the Philippian Epistle is ranged alongside Romans and the Corinthian Epistles ; and the mission of Timothy (Ac 19~, 1 Co 16") is explained. The initial difficulty, however, is to prove an Ephesian imprisonment. There is no mention of it by St. Luke, but does not St. Paul himself refer to it (1 Co 1532, 2 Co 48-1" 6»-i»)? The extra-canonical arguments used by Albertz are of little value — the seven imprisonments mentioned by Clem. Rom. {ad Cor. I. v. 6), the account in Nicephorus Kallisti of St. Paul's fight in the arena, the testimony of the Acts of Paul, and the tower still in Ephesus known as 'Paul's Prison' (see art. Philippi for references). The real argument is, however, the 'fighting with beasts at Ephesus' (1 Co 15^-).
The theory as advocated by H. Lisco {Vincula Sanctorum, Berlin, 1900) is sharply criticized by Albertz himself (especially his view that Rome was a Hafengebiet in Ephesus, which is a curiosity of criticism), though Lisco seems to have first raised the possibility of an Ephesian imprisonment. Deissmann, who claims for himself the originating of the theory {Licht vo7n Osten, p. 171 n., Eng. tr., p. 229 n.), unfortunately is surer of the E]ihesian origin of Colossians and Ephesians than he is of the Ephesian origin of Philippians. The stylistic argument he explains on psychological grounds {ib.). Albertz's article is worthy of serious atten-
224 PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
tion, and Kirsopp Lake claims a hearing for it {Exp, 8tli ser., vii. [1914] 492 f.). On tliis view, it is held, it is easier to imagine St. Paul influencing the few pra'torians in Ephesus than the 9000 in Rome. The house of Ca?sar offers no ditticulty, for slaves of the Imperial house were .scattered all over the provinces, and there is epigraphic evi- dence for their existence in lM)lie.sus {(j.v.). St. Paul's intention of going to Pliilippi is explicable, whereas if the letter was written from Rome we would expect him to go farther west. His expres- sion eis aTro\oyiav evayyeXiov Kcijuat (1^^ ; cf. v.*^) refers to a real trial — an appearance before the court. Then, if the letter is written from Rome, the refer- ence to the Philippians' gift is sarcastic (^5?; ttoW), as ten years had elapsed since they had helped him, and this is unthinkable. The difficulties about this theory are to prove St. Paul's Ephesian imprisonment, and especially his fighting with beasts, for he was a Roman citizen, and this indignity would accordingly not be suflered by him. Luke's silence is again a serious matter ; and, indeed, his account militates against an imprisonment, nor is it likely that St. Paul would take for granted that the Philippians would under- stand the references to the prfetorium and the household of Cassar without further explanation. Above all, his situation as described in Philippians does not easily fit anything we know of his stay in Ephesus. Tlie doctrinal and linguistic argument, which is really the motive of all these theories, can well be explained on psychological grounds, and the ditt'erent conditions of the churches addressed (cf. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 359 ; Deissmann, Lwht voin Osten, p. 171, Eng. tr., p. 229; Mottatt, LNT, p. 170).
We know so little of the procedure in cases of appeal that it is difficult to be sure of the situa- tion St. Paul was in when Philippians was written, but the present writer concludes that the Apostle wrote Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon earlier than Philippians, that when he MTote Philippians most of his trusted associates (see Colossians and Philemon) had gone on missions to churches, and he had difficulty in finding any one to go to Philippi. It was thus either at the end of his two years confinement in his hired house (Ac 28^°), or at a later date when he was more immediately occupied with his appearing before the judicial authorities. We believe that he had already made a preliminary defence and that he was actually set free shortly after this, either because the Jews had no case and failed to appear, or else because their case broke down on examination. Whether we can interpret Philippians as meaning that St. Paul had now to undergo a stricter custody than that described in Acts is doubtful though not improbable ; if it took place it was not due to a breaking down of his case but to judicial arrange- ments. Thus the dating of the letter depends on the view which we take of Pauline chronology generally. The two points to be fixed are Gallio's governorship of Achaia and Festus' stay in Csesarea (see C. H. Turner, HUB i. 415 ff., and Deissmann, St. Paul, Eng. tr., London, 1912, Appendix I.). The present writer is of the opinion that St. Paul came to Rome in 60 at the latest, and that he was liberated towards the end of 61. We must therefore place the authorship of Philip- pians in this year, and that of the other imprison- ment letters earlier.