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 However, there is no clear evidence for an Ephesian imprisonment in Paul’s letters or in Acts. Second, it can be argued that Ephesus and Colossae, only one hundred miles apart, make far more plausible the flight of Onesimus, the delegation of Tychicus/Onesimus, any travels back and forth by Epaphras, the forthcoming visit of John Mark, and the possible visit of Paul to Philemon. This flurry of comings and goings is more likely than a series of lengthy sea journeys that were dangerous and took weeks or months at a time. Third, Paul’s request in Phlm 22 that a guest room be prepared for him is more realistic given an Ephesian imprisonment. If it was Paul’s plan to go further west after his release from confinement in Rome, then a journey to Colossae to visit Philemon would have meant significantly revising (or reversing) that plan. Alternatively, the remark may simply be rhetorical and a polite wish to visit but with no actual intent to do so (my in-laws in Australia threaten to visit me in Scotland all the time but thankfully only rarely do so) and remain consistent with a Roman setting. Fourth, according to ancient sources there was an earthquake that destroyed parts of the Lycus Valley, especially Laodicea, ca. 61–62 CE.41 We do not hear of any references to Christians there in extant sources and only Laodicea is mentioned among the seven churches that John the Seer wrote to at the end of the first century (Rev 1:11; 3:14). Even so, we do not know for sure how the Christians in Colossae were affected by the earthquake and what impact it had upon their lives. True enough, Paul does not mention the earthquake when we might expect him to do so, but neither does he mention other “seismic” events such as the expulsion of Jews from Rome under Claudius (49 CE) and their return under Nero (54 CE) when he wrote to the Romans.
The evidence is tightly balanced (and I confess to having changed my mind a number of times). The answer, I think, lies not with internal evidence from Colossians or Philemon, but with the letter to the Philippians and the movements of Timothy. He is named as cosender of Colossians and Philemon (Col 1:1; Phlm 1). To that we can add the observations that Timothy is also named as cosender of Philippians (Phil 1:1), Philippians is also written from captivity (Phil 1:13–14), and Philippians is similar to Philemon in at least two other respects: both look forward to Paul’s eventual release from prison (Phlm 22; Phil 1:19–26; 2:24), and there are several stylistic similarities between them as noted by Francis Watson.42 By way of deduction, my line of reasoning runs Timothy → Philippians → Philemon → Colossians → Location! Thus, the circumstances of Philippians and Timothy are crucial for the provenance and date of Colossians/Philemon.
Philippians could have been written from either Rome or Ephesus, but the internal and external evidence to decide the matter is much stronger. There is a reference to the “praetorian guard” in Phil 1:13, which may denote the elite body guard unit of the emperor in Rome, which also functioned as a police force in the capital. There is also a reference to a greeting from those of “Caesar’s household” in Phil 4:22, which would naturally fit a Roman setting. However, “praetorian” can mean more generally “palace guard” or “military headquarters” (Matt 27:27; Mark 15:16; John 18:28, 33; 19:9; Acts 23:35). And “Caesar’s household” might denote the imperial staff stationed at an imperial residence in Ephesus since this was also the Roman capital of western Asia. Given the rancorous language in Philippians, debates with Paul’s opponents in Galatia and Corinth still seem very recent (e.g., Phil 3:2–11, 18–19). It is also unlikely that Roman prisoners would be incarcerated in the emperor’s own residence. Furthermore, there is no reference to Timothy accompanying Paul to Rome in Acts 28, but he is placed in Ephesus during Paul’s extended ministry there (1 Cor 16:8–10). We also know from Acts that Timothy engaged in one or more trips to Greece and Macedonia from Ephesus (Acts 19:22). Thus, Paul’s intent to send Timothy to Philippi (Phil 2:19) is more likely to comport with his travels to Greece and Macedonia during Paul’s stay in Ephesus than during Paul’s imprisonment in Rome.43 An Ephesian provenance for Philippians seems slightly more probable. As I see it, then, this is how it all stands:
For Rome:
• There is a strong possibility that Philippians was written in Rome and, if so, Timothy’s presence with Paul in Rome is thereby established since he was a cosender of the letter to the Philippians. The Paul–Timothy–Rome connection can then be linked with the letters to Philemon and to the Colossians.
• The theology of Colossians appears to be “developed” in some sense.
• There is no clear reference to an Ephesian imprisonment and it is hard to place John Mark in Ephesus.
For Ephesus:
• An Ephesian setting for Philippians remains