latn^ a form nsed by the Byzantine wiiten, and which perhaps represents the provincial mode of pronouncing the name. On coins and inscriptions [see Eckhel, Dod, Num. 1, iii, 147], and in classical writers [see Yalcken. ad Herod, vii, 80], we find Ko\o<T9ai), a city of Phrygia Pacatiana, in the upper part of the basin of the Meander, on one of its affluents named the Lycns. Hierapolis and Laodicea were in its immediate neigh- borhood (Col. ii, 1 ; iv, 18, 15, 16; see Rev. i, 11 ; iii, 14). Ck)losse fell as these other two cities rose in im- portance. At a later date they were all orerthrown by an earthquake. Herodotus (yii, 80) and Xenophon (Anab. i, 2, 6) speak of it as a dty of considerable con- sequence (oomp. Pliny, v, 29). Strabo (xii, 576) de- scribes it as only a troXurfxcif not a vokiCy yet else- where (p. 578) he implies that it had some mercantile importance ; and Pliny, in Paul's time, describes it (y, 41) as one of the " celeberrima oppida*' of its dis- trict. Colosss was situated close to the great road which led from Ephesos to the Euphrates. Hence our impulse would be to conclude that Paul passed this way, and founded or confirmed the Golossian Church on his third missionary journey (Acts xriil, 28 ; zix, 1). He might also hare easily visited CoIosssb during the prolonged stay at Ephesus, which immediately fol- lowed. The most competent commentators, however, agree in thinking that Col. ii, 1, proves that Paul had never been there when the epistle was written (but see the iSS^tMl. tt. iSTn^ 1829, iii, 612 sq.). SooPaitl. Theo- doret's argument that he must have visited Colosse on the Journey just referred to, because he is said to have gone through the whole region of Phiygia, may be proved fidlacious from geographical considerations ; Colossn, though ethnologicsdly in Phrygia (Herod. /. c. ; Xen. L c), was at this period politically in the province of Asia (see Rev. 1. c). That the apostle hoped to visit the place on being delivered fh>m his Roman imprisonment is clear firom Philemon 22 (com- pare Phil, ii, 24). Philemon and his slave Onesimus were dwellers in Colosss. So also were Archippus and Epaphras. From Col. i, 7 ; iv, 12, it has been nat- urally oonduded that the latter Christian was the founder of the Colossian Church (see Alford's Prole- ffomena to Gr, Teti, iii, 35). See Epaphras. The wor- ship of angels mentioned by the apostle (Col. ii, 18) curiously reappears in Christian times in connection with one of the topographical features of the place. A church in honor of the archangel Michael was erect- ed at the entrance of a chasm in consequence of a le- gend connected with an inundation (Hartley's Re- searcheM in Cfreece^ p. 52) ; and there is good reason for identifying this chasm with one which is mentioned by Herodotus. This kind of superstition is mentioned by Theodoret as subsisting in his time ; also by the By- zantine writer Nicetas Choniates, who was a native of this place, and who says that CoIosssb and Chons were the same (Chron, p. 115). The probability is that un- der the later emperors, Colossps, being in a ruinous state, made way for a more modem town, Chona (Xui- vai, so Theophylact ad Col. ii, 1), situated near it The neighborhood (visited by Pococke) was explored by Mr. Arundel (^Seven Churches ^ p. 158 ; Asia Minor , ii, 160) ; but Mr. Hamilton was the first to determine the actual site of the ancient city, which appears to be at some little distance from the modern village of Cho- nas {Researches in Asia Minor^ i, 508). The huge range of Mount Cadmus rises immediatd}'^ behind the vil- lage, close to which there is in the mountain an im- mense perpendicular chasm, aiSbrding an outlet for a wide mountahi torrent. The ruins of an old castle stand on the summit of the rock forming the left side of this chasm. There are some traces of ruins and fhigments of stone in the neighborhood, but barely more than sufficient to attest the existence of an an- cient site (Pococke, EaMt, iii, 114 ; Schubert, Reiae, i, 282 ; see generally Hofmann, Introd, in lection, ep. ad ^los. Lips. 1749 ; Cellarii NotU. ii, 152 sq. ; Mannert,
Geogr. VI, i, 127 sq. ; Smith, Diet. ofCkm. Gtogr. b. v.).— Smith, s. V. See Colosslars (Epistlk to toe}.
Colosslans, Epistlb to thk, the sevoidi of tk Pauline epistles in the New Test, (see Davidsoo's /s- trod. to <*« iV. r. ii, 894 sq.). See Epistle.
I. ^uMonUp.— That tbb epistle b the gennine pn- duction of the apostle Paul is proved by the mostt nt- is&ctory evidence, and has never, indeed, been scd> ously called in question. The external testimoeke (Just. M. Trypho, p. 811 b; TheophiL ad AmkL ii, p, 100, ed. Col. 1686; Iren«tts, Haer. iii, 14, 1; Oce. Alex. Stnm. I, p. 825 ; iv, p. 688, al., ed. Potter; Tw tull. de ProBscr. ct.7; de Reaurr. ch. 28; Origen, cos- tra CeU. v, 8) are explicit, and the internal aignmeBls, founded on the style, balance of sentences, poeitioBS ti adverbs, uses of the relative pronoun, participial ma- colutha, unusually strong and well defined. It is boc right to suppress the fact that Mayerboff {Dtr Brief an die Kol. BerL 1838) and Baur (DerApmtei Padn, p. 417) have deliberately rejected this epUtle as daia- ing to be a production of the apostle Paul. The first of these critics, however, has been briefly, but, as it would seem, completely answered by Meyer (Sommmt. p. 7) ; and to the second, in his subjective and antl-hiS' toricid attempt to make individual writings of the ]?, T. mere theosophistic j>rodactions of a later Gnosti- cism, the intelligent and critical reader will natarsBj yield but little credence (see R&biger, £>e CkristokgiM PauUna, etc. Vratisl. 1852; Kl6pper, De origime Epp. ad E^hesios et CoUossenses, Gryph. 1858). It Is, is- deed, remarkable that the strongly-marked peenBarin of style, the nerve and force of the arguments, and tbc originality that appears in every paiagra|di, shoizSd not have made both these writers pause in their iB- considered attack on this epistle (see Tregdles, m Home's Introd, new edit. vol. iii).