EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. - The Pauline letters to the Colossians (v.), Ephesians (v.), Philippians (v.) and to Philemon (v.), which presuppose Paul as a prisoner (Col. 4, 3. 10. 18; Eph. 3, 1; 4, 1; 6, 20; Phil. 1, 7. 13 f. 17; Philem. 1. 9 f. 13). The first two, above all, present notable affinities of form and content (v. EFESINI, epistola agli, III).
As for the question of origin, the second Roman imprisonment must be excluded, during which Paul — already once delivered from the lion's mouth (II Tim. 4, 17) — sees his own end as imminent (ibid. 4, 6 f.) and awaits salvation only in the heavenly Kingdom (ibid. 4, 18). In the letters of the imprisonment, on the contrary, he manifests confidence that he will be released (Eph. 6, 19 f.; Col. 4, 3 f.; Phil. 1, 25 ff.; 2, 24; Philem. 22).
The opinion current until modern times favored the first Roman imprisonment (61-63): custodia militaris, which allowed Paul to have his own house (Act. 28, 16. 30) and to receive visitors (ibid. 28, 17. 30). The letters of the imprisonment show at his side collaborators and disciples (Phil. 1, 1; 2, 19. 25 ff.; 4, 21; Col. 1, 1; 4, 7-14; Philem. 1. 23 f.), as well as the fugitive slave Onesimus (Philem. 10-13). An allusion to the praetorians, who took turns guarding Paul (Act. 28, 16), has been seen in Phil. 1, 13. Less well founded is the opinion of a Caesarean origin, upheld by many Protestants and by some Catholics (H. Lesêtre, La Ste Eglise au siècle des Apôtres, Paris 1896, pp. 288-306), who argue especially from the greater ease of reaching Caesarea. But in the picture that Acts has drawn of this imprisonment (58-60), the conditions supposed by the letters are less well verified. At Caesarea Paul was subjected to a military custody (in Herod's praetorium: Act. 23, 35) more severe than that at Rome. The hypothesis of an Ephesian imprisonment, from which the letters of the imprisonment would come, is of even more recent date. Proposed orally by A. Deissmann in 1897 (cf. Licht vom Osten, 4th ed., Tübingen 1923, p. 201, n. 4), it received publicity three years later from H. Lisco (Vincula sanctorum, Berlin 1900; Roma peregrina, ibid. 1901) and has met with a certain success. The supporters of the Ephesian imprisonment are listed by A. Deissmann (Paulus, 2nd ed., Tübingen 1925, p. 13, n. 2), J. Schmid (op. cit. in bibl., pp. 3-6), B. Brinkmann (in Verbum Domini, 19 [1939], p. 321, n. 5). Among the more recent Catholics may be noted B. Brinkmann, ibid., pp. 322-32; P. Gächter, Summa introductionis in Nov. Test., Innsbruck-Leipzig 1938, p. 205; P. Benoit (Les épîtres de st Paul, Paris 1939, pp. 7-13). These, however, assign to the Ephesian imprisonment only Philippians, as do also the non-Catholics M. Albertz, K. Lake, M. Goguel, P. Feine-J. Behm. In favor of an Ephesian imprisonment, the so-called prison of St. Paul — a remnant of a Roman tower that rises at the extremity of Coressus (Bulbul-Dagh) — is not an effective argument, nor is the disputed prologue to Colossians. The "fight with beasts" of which I Cor. 15, 32 speaks (cf. II Cor. 1, 8 ff.) seems metaphorical (H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther I-II, 2nd ed., Tübingen 1923, p. 83 f.), like that with the ten leopards in St. Ignatius's letter to the Romans (5, 1); in any case, it does not necessarily imply an imprisonment of notable duration.
On the contrary, the silence of Acts is not decisive. II Cor. 11, 23 suggests, for the preceding period, some imprisonment not mentioned in Acts. Particularly significant are the texts in which St. Paul, after the Ephesian sojourn, speaks of his fellow prisoners (Rom. 16, 7) or of persons who ran grave danger of their lives for him (ibid. 16, 4).
The journeys supposed by Philippians (2, 25 f.; cf. 4, 18), even reduced to the minimum possible, are better understood if they are between Philippi and Ephesus, rather than between Philippi and Rome. This is one of the reasons why the "Ephesian" hypothesis for this letter is meeting with a certain favor, even among Catholics, while the Roman origin of the others is maintained.
These presuppose that Mark and Luke are at Paul's side (Col. 4, 10. 14; Philem. 24), whereas of the Ephesian period Luke speaks in the third person. The latter, moreover, though well known to the community of Philippi (Act. 16, 10-40), is not named in Philippians. It should be noted, finally, that, both for its general tone and for its emphasis against the Judaizers (3, 2-11), this letter seems closer to Thessalonians and Galatians than to the other three of the imprisonment (v. FILIPPESI, epistola 11). The mention of the "praetorium" (Phil. 1, 13) and of "those of Caesar's household" (ibid. 4, 22) does not oblige us to think of Rome: in every great city of the empire there was a "praetorium" (local sense) and people who managed the emperor's interests, working his estates or his mines.
Bibliography13 works
Teodorico da Castel S. Pietro