“The whole contents of the two Epistles are substantially the same,” and asserts that Ephesians and Colossians are so interwoven “that they stand or fall together in their claim to apostolic origin” ([1873–75] 2003: vol. 2, 4, 44).
14. On the independent nature of Colossians from Ephesians, see Ellis 1999: 110–11; and Talbert 2007: 4–6; while Barth and Blanke (1994: 72–114) argue that the problem of literary dependency is unsolved and perhaps unsolvable.
15. Technically, Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles are the so-called “Deutero-Pauline” letters, while Colossians and Second Thessalonians are the proper “Disputed Pauline” letters. Cf. Mead 1986: 118.
16. Cf. recently Lohse 1971: 181; Pokorný 1991: 21; Lincoln 2000: 580; Wilson 2005: 17–19; but against this scenario is Schweizer 1982: 19–21; Wedderburn 1987: 70; Dunn 1996: 37.
17. Käsemann, RGG 3:728.
18. Cf. especially the positive case for Pauline authorship in O’Brien 1982: xli–xlix; Smith 2006: 6–14. In particular, it seems hard to place Col 4:7–17 in a post-Pauline context. Furthermore, deSilva (2004: 701) argues that the contents are exactly what we would expect from an astute pastoral leader concerning: (a) reliance on shared traditions, (b) Paul’s brief reflection on his own calling in God’s purpose, and (c) personal matters like prayer requests, personal greetings, and personal exhortations.
19. Cf. Bujard 1973; Kiley 1986; Collins 2005.
20. Cf. the data listed in Lohse 1971: 84–88; McL. Wilson 2005: 12–13.
21. O’Donnell 2005: 388.
22. Lohse 1971: 87; O’Brien 1982: xliii.
23. Lohse 1971: 84–85, 87, 182–83; McL. Wilson 2005: 14.
24. Cf. Cannon (1983: 49): “Based on the United Bible Societies’ text of Colossians, of the 114 lines of text in the first two chapters, thirty-four (or thirty percent) of them are drawn from traditional material and twenty-five of them are careful applications of the traditional material. This means that over fifty percent of the first two chapters of Colossians are influenced by words, ideas, and modes of expression that were already existing in the early church. Any judgment made about the authorship of the letter must keep this important factor fully in mind.”
25. Cf. Reicke 2001: 75; Bird 2008b, 377–78.
26. Witherington 2007: 1–2, esp. the quote from L. T. Johnson in n. 2.
27. Cf. Bauckham 1988: 492.
28. Lohse 1971: 180 (see all of 177–83); cf. Baur 2003 [1873–75]: vol. 2, 7–8, 35–38 on the apparently developed Christology of Colossians.
29. I am unpersuaded by O’Brien (1982: xlv–xlvi, 57–61) who understands the “church” in 1:18 as a reference to heavenly assembly around the risen Christ.
30. Still 2004: 133.
31. Cf. Sappington 1991: 226; Gorman 2004: 477; Still 2004: 130–35; deSilva 2004: 697–98.
32. Dunn 1996: 38–39.
33. MacDonald 2008: 44.
34. On Timothy as author see Schweizer 1982: 23–25; Dunn 1996: 38–39. It is interesting that two manuscripts state that Colossians was written “from Rome through Tychicus and Onesimus” (075, 1739, 1881, and several Byzantine witnesses), which associates these Pauline coworkers with the letter’s composition and delivery.
35. Cf. Gnilka 1982: 5; Schweizer 1982: 24–25; Pokorný 1991: 9.
36. Another option put forward (e.g., Ellis 1999: 266–75; Reicke 2001: 75) is Caesarea (Acts 23:33—26:32) where, according to Acts, Paul was imprisoned for two years (Acts 24:27). But Paul had no hope for an early release which is reflected in Philemon (v. 22). Caesarea would not have provided a likely outlet for Paul’s evangelistic work referred to in Colossians (Col 4:3–4). Caesarea is also a less likely refuge for a runaway slave (see Martin 1973: 24).
37. (1) Timothy can be placed in Ephesus (Acts 19:22; 1 Cor 16:10; 1 Tim 1:3) but not Rome (unless Phil 1:1 was written from Rome). (2) Tychicus is linked to Rome and Ephesus (2 Tim 4:12) but towards the end of Paul’s imprisonment. (3) Aristarchus was apparently in Ephesus during the riot there (Acts 19:29) and he probably sailed onto Rome with Paul (Acts 27:2). (4) Demas is only linked with Paul in his final imprisonment and noted for his desertion (2 Tim 4:10). (5) If Luke was Paul’s travelling companion after Troas (Acts 16:11) he may have been with Paul in Ephesus and probably accompanied him to Rome, hence “we came to Rome” (Acts 28:14, 16; cf. 2 Tim 4:11). (6) John Mark had broken off from Paul (Acts 15:37–41) during an earlier missionary journey so the reference to him with Paul in Col 4:10 and Phlm 24 is all the more peculiar. It means that reconciliation has probably occurred. He is placed in Rome by 1 Pet 5:13 and in Ephesus by 2 Tim 4:11.
38. For a Roman setting see, e.g., Kümmel 1975: 347–48; O’Brien 1982: xlix–liv; Dunn 1996: 41; Gorman 2004: 478; Witherington 2007: 22–24; and for an Ephesian setting, e.g., Lohse 1971: 166–67 (for Philemon); Martin 1973: 30; Schweizer 1982: 25–26; Wright 1986: 34–39; Stuckenbruck 2003: 127; deSilva 2004: 668 (for Philemon).
39. The Pastoral Epistles (if authentic) also testify to a second Roman imprisonment (2 Tim 1:17), but Colossians could not have been written during a second Roman imprisonment since Timothy was in Ephesus at this time and unable to be cosender of the letter to the Colossians.
40. A number of Pauline chronologists (e.g., Knox 1950: 71; Jewett 1979: 103; Lüdemann 1984: 263; Riesner 1998: 213–16) either support or allow the possibility of an Ephesian imprisonment.
41. Tacitus Annals 14.27.
42. Watson 2007:
