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: 141–42.
43. Cf. Thielman 2003.
44. I have changed my mind on this since Bird 2008a: 65. Note also the hesitancy of Moule 1957: 24; and Dunn 1996: 41.
45. I prefer the term “philosophy” since that is the word used to describe the viewpoint that Paul is opposing in Colossians (2:8) and other terms like “error” or “heresy” presuppose later standards of orthodoxy.
46. On the methodology for trying to identify Paul’s opponents in Colossae see Sumney 1993; Wolter 1993: 156; DeMaris 1994: 41–45; Arnold 1996: 4; Stettler 2005: 172.
47. Gunther 1973; and see surveys in Francis 1975; Stettler 2005; Smith 2006: 19–38.
48. Hooker 1973; but see response by Gnilka 1980: 163–64 n. 4. Calvin (1979a: 132–33) saw Paul confronting worldly philosophy on the one hand with its reference to “stars, fate, the trifles of a like nature” and the Jews on the other hand who urged “observance of their ceremonies” and “had raised up many mists with a view of throwing Christ into the shade.” These Jews are clearly Jewish Christians for Calvin, and he says that they tried to “mix up Christ with Moses, and might retain the shadows of the law along with the gospel.” Throughout the commentary he calls them “false apostles.” At the same time Calvin saw these false teachers as Hellenistic to some extent and concerned with speculations contained in the books of Dionysius on the Celestial Hierarchy stemming from the Platonic school. Calvin emphasizes at length Paul’s critique of Jewish ceremonies (1979a: 181–82, 188–89), which he sees pregnant even in the “elements” (2:8) and “written code” (2:14).
49. Cf. e.g., Dibelius 1975: 99.
50. Baur 2003 [1873–75]: 2.28–32.
51. Cf. e.g., Lincoln (2000: 567) who writes: “[T]he proponent(s) of the teaching have taken a number of elements from Judaism and the Christian gospel and linked these with typical cosmological concerns from the Hellenistic world. It is quite plausible that a Hellenistic Jew who had left the synagogue to join a Pauline congregation or a Gentile convert who had had some previous contact with the synagogue would advocate such a philosophy, and the writer evidently was concerned that it might appeal to others among his preponderantly Gentile Christian readers.” Similarly, see Arnold 1996: 228–29.
52. Schweizer 1982: 81, 129–33, 136–37, 151.
53. DeMaris 1994; Kooten 2003: 143–46.
54. Martin 1996.
55. Cf. Bruce 1957: 166–67; Lohse 1971: 18, 128; Martin 1973: 18–19; O’Brien 1982: xxxviii; Barth and Blanke 1994: 38; Lincoln 2000: 563–68; and esp. Arnold 1996.
56. Philo Spec. 1.315–16.
57. Hengel and Schwemer 1997: 70.
58. Cf. Meyer and Smith 1994; Arnold 1996: 83–97, 238–43; Busch 2007.
59. Origen Cels. 1.26.
60. Arnold 1996: 20–31.
61. See discussion and references in Bruce 1984a: 7; Trebilco 1991: 58–59.
62. Cf. e.g., Josephus Ant. 14.261.
63. Trebilco 1991: 142; cf. Dunn 1995: 156.