COLOSSIANS, EPISTLE TO THE.—That this Epistle is the genuine production of the apostle Paul is proved by the most satisfactory evidence, and has never indeed been seriously called in question (see Lardner, Credibility; Davidson, Introa'. ii. 426). The objections which Schwegler, Baur, etc., have urged against the authenticity of this Epistle, rest chiefly on minute details, which we cannot examine here ; the reader will find them discussed by De Wette, Linleit. sec. 144, and Alford, Cr. Test. It is less certain, however, when and where it was composed by him. The common opinion is that he wrote it at Rome during his imprisonment in that city (Acts xxviii. 16, 30). Erasmus, followed by others, supposes that Ephesus was the place at which it was composed ; but this suggestion is obviously untenable from its incompatibility with the allusions contained in the Epistle itself to the state of trouble and imprisonment in which the Apostle was whilst composing it (i. 24 ; iv. 10, 18). In Germany, the opinions of theologians have been divided of late years between the common hypothesis and one proposed by Dr. David Schulz, viz., that this Epistle, with those to the Ephesians and Philemon, was written during the Apostle's two years' imprisonment at Caesarea previous to his being sent to Rome. This opinion has been adopted and defended by Schott, Bottger, Wig gers, and Reuss, whilst it has been opposed by Neander, Steiger, Harless, R tick ert, C red ner, Bleek, and others. It is admitted that there is nothing in the Epistles themselves which renders the common opinion improbable ; but it is con tended that there are various considerations of a general kind which tend to make the view of Schulz preferable. We shall briefly state the leading arguments in favour of this opinion, along with the counter-arguments of those who oppose it :-1. It is highly improbable that Paul would allow two years of easy imprisonment (Acts xxiv. 23-27) to pass away without writing to some of the churches at a distance, especially as he tells us that upon him came daily the care of all the churches,' 2 Cor. xi. 28), and as we find that he secured time for this even when most actively em ployed in his public apostolic labours. To this it is replied, that admitting the facts here assumed, they only prove that Paul /night have employed himself during these two years in epistolary corre spondence with distant churches, but afford no certain evidence that he really did so, far less that he wrote then the very epistles in question. 2.
These epistles bear evident marks of having been written in consequence of communications made personally to Paul by parties connected with the churches to which they were addressed ; and there is greater probability of his receiving such com munications at Caesarea than at Rome, especially during the earlier part of 4fis residence there, to which these epistles (if written at Rome) must be ascribed. But it is replied to this, that distant as Rome was from the churches of Asia Minor, there is nothing unlikely in the supposition that Epa phras and others may have undertaken a journey thither to consult the Apostle about the state of these churches, threatened as they were with dan ger ; and, for anything we know to the contrary, many of the Asiatic Christians may have had occa sion to be at Rome at any rate on affairs of their own. 3. There is no small difficulty in supposing that in the early part of the Apostle's residence at Rome, all the parties mentioned in these epistles, viz., Timothy, Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus-Justus, Epaphras, Luke, Demas, Onesimus, Tychicus, should be found there with him, especially as we are told (Acts xxvii. 2) that only Aristarchus accom panied Paul and Luke from Cmsarea, and as, in the epistles known to have been written from Rome, only two of the parties above mentioned, Timothy and Luke, are referred to as with the Apostle (Phil. i. 1 ; ii. 1g ; 2 Tim. iv. ; whilst, on the other hand, from Acts xx. 4, we learn that some at least of these parties were with Paul at Cmsarea. In answer to this it is said, that it does not appear other than natural that Paul should have gathered around him in his imprisonment those young men who had elsewhere been the companions and in struments of his operations, and have used them for the purpose of maintaining a continual inter course with distant churches according to their circumstances and wants. 4. The appearance of Onesimus, the slave of Philemon, at the place where Paul was, very soon, wpas. 6ipav, after he had left his master at Colossze (Philem. ver. Is), agrees better with the supposition that Paul was at Caesarea, than with the supposition that he was at Rome. To this it is replied, that Rome was the most likely of all places for a fugitive slave to betake himself to, and that with respect to the expression 7rpos dpav, it is so vague, and is used so obviously as an antithesis to afibnop in the same verse, that nothing certain can be argued from it.