will follow in his train (see 1 Cor 15:20).30 Even with a strong emphasis on realized eschatology in several places (1:12–13; 2:11–12, 15, 20; 3:1), the future horizon has not disappeared completely in Colossians (1:5, 22, 24, 27–28; 3:4, 6, 10, 24–25) and it retains a reasonable amount of congruity with the undisputed Pauline letters.31 Likewise, the Christology of 1:15–20 and 2:9–10 may sound grandiose, yet it is not out of order with 1 Cor 8:4–6; 2 Cor 8:9; and Phil 2:5–11, which contain traditional material as well. The motif of victory in 2:15 is analogous to 1 Cor 15:54–57 and Rom 8:29–39, 16:20 too. Similarly, the household code of 3:18—4:1 is not the sexist regulations of a Pauline disciple who did not share the apostle’s egalitarian view of women, but stands as part of a natural trajectory from other elements of Paul’s letters about women and households (e.g., 1 Cor 7:1–40; 11:3–16; 14:33–35). In sum, the question of how much difference and development it takes to illegitimate Pauline authorship is unquantifiable and is therefore grossly subjective. What a later disciple of Paul theologically inferred from Paul’s writings fifteen years after his death might not be any different to what Paul and his coworkers inferred themselves while writing to believers from a position of captivity that naturally gave over to exercises of reflection.
There is of course no getting away from the valid perception that Colossians does sound a little different from, say, Galatians and First Thessalonians in language. Colossians develops motifs which, though genuinely Pauline, are emphasized and explored in new ways. What are we to make of this then? James Dunn regards Colossians as a “bridge” between the Pauline and post-Pauline periods and contends that it was composed at the end of Paul’s lifetime, but by somebody other than Paul at Paul’s own behest and approval, hence the autograph.32 The plausibility of this scenario is enhanced by the observation of Margaret MacDonald: “If we think of the authorship of Pauline works as a communal enterprise undertaken by Paul and his entourage, the sharp distinction between authentic and unauthentic epistles is significantly reduced.”33 I would add that this does not make Paul merely the authorizer rather than the author! He may have had varying degrees of input into his various letters ranging from writing them himself (Philemon), writing them with a coauthor (Colossians), dictating them (Romans), or authorizing their composition based on an earlier piece of correspondence (Ephesians). Given those qualifications, I have no hesitation in affirming Colossians as authentically Pauline and written in association with others such as Tychicus, Epaphras, Onesimus, Luke, and especially Timothy.34
Provenance of Colossians and Philemon
Given the qualified assumption of Pauline authorship of Philemon, Colossians, and (more loosely) Ephesians, when and where were the former two epistles written? What we can say is that Colossians and Philemon were probably written in relatively close temporal proximity to each other because the five same persons are mentioned in Paul’s greetings in both letters, namely, Luke, Mark, Demas, Aristarchus, and Epaphras (Col 4:10–14; Phlm 23–24). Timothy is named as coauthor in both letters (Col 1:1; Phlm 1), a sending of Onesimus is referred to in both letters (Col 4:9; Phlm 10, 12, 17), Archippus is mentioned in both (Col 4:17; Phlm 2), and the two letters are undersigned with Paul’s own hand (Col 4:18; Phlm 19). One peculiar fact is that Colossians makes no reference to any potential conflict between Onesimus and Philemon, which one might expect on the return of a runaway slave to his owner which could adversely affect relations within the community (see Paul’s exhortation for unity and reconciliation among Euodia and Syntyche in Phil 4:2). Rather, in Col 4:9 Onesimus is also regarded as a faithful and experienced coworker. The letter to Philemon does not mention Tychicus. It would seem that there was a gap between the composition of Philemon and Colossians,35 in which case the sending back of Onesimus in Phlm 12 and the sending of Onesimus with Tychicus in Col 4:9 may reflect two different journeys of Onesimus to Colossae separated by several months or even up to a year. I surmise that Paul first sent Onesimus back to Philemon. Philemon was reconciled to Onesimus and subsequently returned Onesimus to Paul’s service as requested by Paul. Sometime later, the news of an encounter with a certain “philosophy” in Colossae was relayed to Paul and his coworkers who responded by writing Colossians and sending Tychicus and Onesimus to deliver the letter to Colossae and a circular letter (Ephesians) to the other churches of Asia and principally to Laodicea. I find this scenario plausible, though admittedly unverifiable.
So where was Paul when this happened? He was obviously in captivity (Phlm 1, 10, 23; Col 4:3, 10, 18), but which period of captivity, since he refers to imprisonments in the plural in 2 Cor 11:23 (cf. 1 Clem. 5.6)? The main candidates are Ephesus (ca. 55–57 CE) or Rome (ca. 61–66 CE).36 This subject is one of the most perplexing facing students of Colossians. The problem is mirrored in text-critical observations since some manuscripts (e.g., A and B) regard Colossians as written from Rome. Yet the Marcionite prologue declares it written from Ephesus. To add further complications the Marcionite prologue places the composition of Philemon and Ephesians in Rome. Even if we take into account the movements of Paul’s coworkers according to the Pauline letters and Acts, the evidence still remains ambiguous.37 The internal evidence of Colossians and Philemon themselves are not decisive, nor does taking into account the wider New Testament provide us with a clear cut answer. Instead, we have to weigh the arguments for and against an Ephesian or Roman setting.38
Roman Setting: Pro and Con. In favor of a Roman provenance is that we know Paul did experience a prolonged period of imprisonment in Rome, which is attested by Acts (Acts 28:16) and other early Christian literature.39 The letter to the Philippians was also written from captivity and many think it sent from Rome (Phil 1:13–14). Unfortunately, there is no clear reference to a Roman imprisonment in the undisputed letters of Paul, which is no small fact, and must be taken into consideration. Second, in Phlm 9 Paul calls himself an “old man,” which suggests that it was written at the end of his life. However, this might be a phrase used rhetorically to get Philemon to respect his elder and the apostle. Third, and perhaps the strongest argument for a Roman provenance, is that the theology of Colossians seems to represent a maturation and development of Pauline thought. This is attributable no doubt to Paul’s own theological reflection on Christology and ecclesiology, but also to the interpretation of Paul’s thought that began with his coworkers like Timothy and had already started to weave its way into the letter. Still, this does not necessitate a later date after Paul’s death, since Paul’s theology clearly developed somewhat during the short time span between Galatians (ca. 49 CE) and Romans (ca. 55–56 CE). We do not know how much of the so-called developed theology of Colossians is attributable to the interpretive insights of Paul’s coworkers and their inferences about Paul’s theology, which could have been made from any location or residence with time for writing and reflection. Fourth, Rome would be a very good place for a runaway slave to hide in the massive population of the city, yet it was also a long way to travel (approximately 1200 miles by sea) when other cities in Asia Minor and Syria such as Ephesus and Antioch were nearer and large enough to afford a veil of protection. Fifth, a Roman setting was the preferred view of patristic authors, but it was not unanimous, and constitutes tertiary evidence at best.
Ephesian Setting: Pro and Con. The case for an Ephesian setting is strengthened by accounts that place Paul there more than once (1 Cor 16:8; Acts 18:19–21 and esp. 19:1–20:1) and for three years during his Aegean mission (Acts 19:8–10). That Paul experienced imprisonment in Ephesus is arguably implied in 2 Cor 1:8 where the apostle refers to the hardships experienced by him and his companions in Asia, and also in 1 Cor 15:32 where Paul speaks metaphorically of fighting wild beasts in Ephesus.40
