difference in letters written together was quite to be expected. No trace of the process has been left in the textual evidence, and this is a cogent argument against the theory. The only alternative, then, to Holtzmann’s view seems to be that both letters were written by Paul; and thus his investigation becomes the firm basis for quite another result than the author contemplated. We cannot in that case speak of mutual indebtedness ; the phenomena that suggested this explanation are amply accounted for by the unity of authorship. It is noteworthy that Jiilicher, who has no leaning to traditional opinions, thinks that the best solution of the problem is to be found in the acceptance of the authenticity of both Epistles (Einl. 7. d. N.T., 1894, p. 97, but compare the more dubious tone of his article in the Enc. Bibl., 1899). This view, it may be added, is confirmed by the close connexion of Colossians with Philemon, which, if genuine, all but guarantees the genuineness of Colossians; and that it is not authentic has been argued solely to dispose of its testimony to Colossians. We may therefore accept this Epistle with confidence as the work of Paul.
Since Paul was a prisoner when he wrote it, our only alternatives are Czesarea and Rome. Meyer, Weiss, Haupt and others have argued for Czsarea. What Weiss regards as decisive is that Paul speaks in Philemon of going to Colosse on his release, whereas in Philippians, written from Rome, he says that he hopes to go into Macedonia. But this proves nothing, for Macedonia might have been taken on the way; and, besides, Paul’s plans might have changed in the interval. Haupt thinks that the genuineness of the letters can be maintained only on the assumption that they were written at Cesarea, since letters so unlike Philippians cannot have been written so near to it as their composition at Rome would demand. He thinks their peculiar character is best explained by the fact that Paul in his confinement, unable to preach, was driven in upon himself, and thought out more fully than before the implica- tion of his Gospel. The fruit of this we find in Colossians and Ephesians. This is of too speculative a character to bear any weight. On the other hand, it is certainly more probable that a runaway slave should have fled to Rome than to Czesarea; for although Czesarea was nearer for Onesimus than Rome, the latter was more accessible, and afforded a far safer concealment. Paul’s expectations of release were more natural at Rome than at Ceesarea.