# Encyclopaedia Biblica/River of the Wilderness-Rome (Church)

 Encyclopaedia Biblica River of the Wilderness-Rome (Church)
 see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status

## RIVER OF THE WILDERNESS

See ARABAH, BROOK OF THE.

## RIZIA

1 Ch. 7:39 RV, AV REZIA.

## RIZPAH

(nipyi ; 71, 'pavement' 1 ; pecd>\[BAL), daughter of AIAH [q.v.], Saul's concubine, 2 S. 3:7, 21:8+, (pecb(bA,e [A in v. 8]). According to the existing tradition 'Ishbosheth' was angry with Abner for taking possesssion of his father's concubine, and Abner indignantly repelled the accusation (on 2 S. 3:8 see NABAL). Winckler, however, plausibly holds (GZ 2:19b) that the original tradition interpreted this fact differently, and that in reality Abner had dethroned 'Ishbosheth', and signified his assumption of Saul s crown by taking possession of Saul's wife (cp 12:11, 16:22). The pathetic story of Rizpah's conduct when her two sons ARMONI (see SAUL, 6) and MEPHIBOSHETH [q.v.] and the five sons of Michal or rather MERAB [q.v.] had been put to death, to remove the blood-guiltiness of the land, is also, according to Winckler (GI 2:241), unhistorical ; he suspects mythological affinities, and compares the myth of Niobe (Preller, Griech Myth. 2269). According to 2 S. 21:11+, it was on hearing of the act of Rizpah, that David sent for the bones of Saul and Jonathan, that they might be buried together in the sepulchre of Kish at Zela, or rather Laish ( =Shalishah). See ZELAH.

On the Rizpah-story see further J\SP) 419+, and on the mode of execution (J?pi ,t) see HANGING, 2b ; on the source of the narrative, see SAMUEL (BOOKS), 4+; We. CH 263 ; Bu. Ri. Sa. 257-258;

T. K. C.

## ROAST

See COOKING, 6 ; SACRIFICE, 6.

## ROBE

the rendering suggests an outer garment of some richness, more elaborate and elegant than an ordinary mantle.

The word occurs most frequently as the rendering of me'il (see MANTLE, 2 [6]), occasionally, too, of addereth, Jon. 3:6, and (for MT eder) Mi. 2:8 (see ib. 5), and of mahalasoth, Is. 3:22 RV (see iv. 7), <TToA>/ [stole], Lk. 15:22, 20:46, Rev. 6:11, 7:9, 7:13-14 (see ib. 16), and \Ko.)i.\><; [chlamys], Mt. 27:28 (see ib. 20). It is applied to the more general terms beged (1 K. 22:10, 22:30 || 2 Ch. 18:9, 18:29; see DRESS, 1 [i]), and eer0>/s [esthes] (Lk. 23:11, RV 'apparel' ), and is once used to render kuttoneth (Is. 22:21), on which see TUNIC. See DRESS, MANTLE, and cp CLOTHING, GARMENT.

## ROBOAM

(Mt. 1:7 ), RV REHOBOAM.

## ROCK

i. "1-1 V, sur. See NAMES OF GOD, 15, and ZUR. [Under ZUR thirty-five places are cited where zur seems to have become altogether a synonym for God. In twenty-one of these LXX (from a dread of materialism?) has Seos [theos], in four (SotjSos [boethos], in four (/>uAaf [phylax]; icupios [kyrios] (Is. 17:10), jt icaio? [dikaios] (1 S. 2:2), KTUTTTJS [ktistes] (2 S. 22:32), di TiA.rjju.TrTiop [antilemptoor] (Ps. 89:27 [89:26]) each occur once ; and in Dt. 32:37, Hab. 1:12 LXX shows a different text.]

2. jta, sela. See SELA. [In 2 S. 222, Ps. 18:3 [18:2], 31:4 [31:3], 42:10 [42:9], sela is a synomyn of sur, and a divine title. Konig (Stylistik, 100) finds sela once used of a heathen god, but iy pp (EV 'his rock') in Is. 31:9, if correct, is parallel to vnt? (EV 'his princes' ). See Crit. Bib.]

3- ril D, ma'os (Judg. 6:26 RV), cp FORTRESS;

4. EJcVn. hallamish (Job 28:9), cp FLINT ;

5. fjs, keph (Jer. 4:29, Job 30:6) ; cp CEPHAS, SIMON PETER.

(]D : , Lev. 11:5 RVmg), EV CONEY.

## ROD

Of the following words, the first three are also rendered 'staff' ; see Is. 30:32 (the staff of judgment); Ps. 23:4 (o]r, || n:ye C, see STAFF, 1) ; Gen. 32:10 (Jacob's staff); for a very special sense of nan and oae , see SCEPTRE.

1. HBD, matteh (\XnBJ, to stretch out) : of the staff or wand of the traveller (Gen. 38:18, 38:25, etc.), shepherd (Ex. 4:2, etc.), wonder worker (Ex. 7:9, 7:12, etc.), warrior (1 S. 14:27, 14:43), task-master (Is. 9:3 [9:4], etc.), ruler (Jer. 48:17, etc.) ; an implement of punishment (Is. 30:31), used also in beating out black cummin (kesah, Is. 28:27). The 'rods' in Nu. 17:17+ [17:2+] are apparently 'shafts', i.e., arrows or spears. Matteh is also rendered 'staff' (the staff of judgment), Is. 30:32. Cp the Ar. nabut, Doughty, Ar. Des. 1:147, 379.

2. a3!r, shebet, cp Ass. shabatu, 'to beat' (whence shibtu, 'staff', as something to beat with, but also 'massacre', Frd. Del.)

• (a) As an implement of punishment (Prov. 10:13, 18:24); the bastinado as authorised by law is referred to in Dt. 25:1-3, and (probably) Dt. 22:18. See LAW AND JUSTICE, 12. In LXX the verbs are ^acmyovv [mastigoun], TraiSfveu [paideuein]; pa/36tfeii&gt [rabdizein] is used only of threshing in agriculture,
• (b) As used for beating cummin (kammon, Is. 28:27).
• (c) Of the shepherd's staff, or club-stick (Ar. nabut), Ps. 23:4, Lev. 27:32, Ezek. 20:37.
• (d) Of the ruler's staff; see SCEPTRE,
• (e) Of a weapon, in time of stress, 2 S. 23:21.
• Both matteh and sebet are used also metaphorically in the sense of 'tribe' (see TRIBE).

3. S?;:, makkel, literally a shoot or wand (Jer. 1:11, Gen. 30:37, etc.); of traveller 's staff, Gen. 32:11; of the shepherd's, 1 S. 17:40, 17:43, Zech. 11:7, 11:10, 11:14 ; once perhaps of a crutch, see STAFF, 3. Used in rhabdomancy, Hos. 4:12 (see DIVINATION, 2 [ij).

4. n^n, hoter, used only metaphorically (but as representing its literal sense of 'shoot', 'scion', or 'twig' ), Is. 11:1, Prov. 14:3 t.

5. pa/3o9 [rabdos], 1 Cor. 4:21, Heb. 9:4, Rev. 2:27, 11:1, 12:5, 19:15, all, except 1 Cor. (l.c.) and Rev. 11:1, influenced by OT.

The 'beating with rods' (paj35i eii< [rabdizein]) in Acts 16:22, 2 Cor. 11:25 is the Roman punishment inflicted by the lictors (EV 'Serjeants', pa/36o{/xoc. [rabdouchoi] : Acts 16:35, 16:38).

## RODANIM

(D rrn), 1 Ch. 1:7 AVmg, RV ; AV DODANIM.

## ROE

The rendering of:

i. tsebi, "2V (Ar. zaby, Aram. tabya [cp TABITHA], Ass. tsabitu; Sopxds [dorkas] (RNAL1) in EV of 1 Ch. 128, and 2 S. 2:18 ( 'wild roe', lit. 'roe that is in the field', cp RVmg.), and, with RVmg 'gazelle', in EV of Cant. 2:7 (LXX &VvdiUtnv [dynamesin]) 9 and 17 (LXX BopKiavi [dorkooni]), 3:5 (LXX Svvdneo-iv [dynamesin]) 8:14 ; AV only in Ecclus. 27:20 (RV 'gazelle' ); also the rendering of the fem, form tsebiyyah, rV3!, in Cant. 4:5, 7:3 [7:4] RV (RVmg. 'gazelle', not in AV). When mentioned as an article of food tsebi is rendered Roebuck (Dt. 12:15, 12:22, 14:5, 15:22, 1 K. 4:23 [5:3], AV ; RV 'gazelle' ).

2. ya'alah, Fl^iF, Prov. 5:19, RV, DOE ; cp GOAT, 2.

3. 'opher, 1BJ?, Cant. 4:5, 7:3 [7:4], AV 'young roe', RV 'fawn', see HART.

4. yahmur, HBn (lit. 'red' ), Dt. 14:5, 1 K. 4:23 [5:3] ; AV FALLOW-DEER 03ou /3aAos [boubalos] [AJ, in Dt.]; B in Dt., and BAL in Ki. om. ?).

Like the GAZELLE and HART, the roe is chiefly alluded to for its swiftness, and partly on account of its grace and beauty is a favourite image of female charms. 1 On the species in general see GOAT, 2, and note that the name yahmur (no. 4 above) is still used by the Arabs for the true Cervus capreolus (cp Dr. Deut., ad loc. and see ANTELOPE). The Capreolus capra, with which the yahmur has also been identified, is a small form found distributed over Europe and W. Asia, and still occurs in Palestine ; specimens of it were seen by Tristram on Lebanon, and by Conder (Tent-Work, 91 [1887]) on Mt. Carmel. The fallow-deer (cp AV), Cervus dama, is a native of N. Africa and of the countries surrounding the Mediterranean, whence it has been introduced into many civilised countries. It occurs also in N. Palestine, but is said to be scarce. A nearly allied species, C. mesopotamicus, is found in parts of W. Persia. A. E. S. - s. A. c.

1 If these animals were sacred to the goddess of love (see GAZELLE), another plausible origin of the reference might be sought for.

## ROGELIM

(D^l ; P a>reA[A]eiM [BA], p AK ABeiN [L]) ; the home of 'Barzillai the Gileadite' (2 S. 17:27, 19:31). The existence of such a place is questionable. Probably the passages relative to Barzillai are based on an earlier passage respecting MEPHIBOSHETH [q.v. 2] which had already become corrupt, and c ^JT (Rogelim) is a corruption of a 1 ?} iva Beth-gallim, i.e., Beth-gilgal (see GALLIM ; SAUL, 4).

The corruption arose from a scribe's lapsus oculi. In 2 S. 17:27-28 the true text probably ran (see LXX{BAL} and cp YARN) aas*? TOTO niL-gy c 3-ipp trVrrrsa "ij ^n ^pin. But C 3*lpO was miswritten Q ^pio ; the consequence of which was that one scribe (followed by MT and LXX{BA}) wrote C SjISi ant l another (followed by LXX{L}) wrote C SplD, instead of D W"JV3p. The f\vfyica.v [enegkan] of LXX{BAL} represents c ^MlpD (cp Judg. 3:17-18). 2 S. 19:31 was harmonised, as to the name of Barzillai s home, with 2 S. 17:27 in each of the texts.

T. K. C.

## ROHGAH

(ilinh Kt. ilSrn Kr.), a name in a genealogy of ASHER (q.v. 4 ii. ). In 1 Ch. 7:34 '[Ahi] and Rohghah' becomes [&xi]oyiA [B], [AXIJOYP* OfA [A], [Heif] KAI pAfOye t L -] ; but roaga: Pesh. om. passage) ; cp Am, 2.

## ROIMUS

(poeiMoy [B]), 1 Esd. 5:8 = Ezra 2:2 , REHUM, i.

## ROLL

i. rt^ja, megillah; xapriov [chartion], xaprijs [chartes], Ke^aXis [kephalis]), Jer. 36:2, etc. See WRITING.

2 - i r !*?> gillayon , for 7113 j LXX has TO^OV jcatcov /xeyaAou [tomon kainou megalou] [BXQ] rofj.01 vdprou [tomon charton] K. ju. [A] ; RV 'tablet'. A tablet of wood or stone is probably meant. Is. 8:1-2. For the gilyonim of Is. 3:23 cp MIRROR, end.

3. 13D, sephar, Ezra 6:1, RV 'archives'. See WRITING and cp HISTORICAL LITEKATUKK.

## ROLLER

frinri; MA\A r MA [BAQF ; cp Is. 16]), Ezek. 30:21, one of the few references to surgical practice in the EV (see MEDICINE). Hittul from ^/ [root] entwine (used in Ezek. 16:4 of swaddling, cp derivative in Job 38:9) is properly a bandage (cp Toy's rendering in SBOT) rather than a poultice (as LXX).

## ROMAMTI-EZER

(im fiElpl, 23, according to the Chronicler a son of Heman : 1 Ch. 25:4, 25:31 yioi toA. pOMGAxei [B, superscr. co6 B a - b ], e/v\9i ezep, poo/wee Miezep [A], p&M&Giezep [L], romemthiezer [Vg. ]), but see HEMAN.

## ROMANS (EPISTLE)

• History of criticism (1-3).
• What Romans seems to be (4).
• Contents (5)
• Not a letter (6-8).
• Structure (9-13).
• Late date (14-18).
• Conclusion (19).
• Author (20-22).
• His date (23).
• Value of Work (24).
• Defenders of authenticity (25).
• Literature (26).

Of Epistles to the Romans Old-Christian Literature is acquainted with two - that of Paul and that of Ignatius. As regards the latter, the reader is referred to what has been said under OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE ( 28-29). The 'Epistle of Paul to the Romans' has come down to us from antiquity not as a separate work but as one of the most distinguished members of a group - the epistles of Paul (fwtffTo\al HavXov) - in which its title in the shortest form, followed by Ti. WH among others (after KABC, etc.), is 'to Romans' (irpbs 'Pwuaios)

### History of criticism.

From the beginning (first by Marcion, about 140 A. D. ) the work, as an integral part of the authoritative 'Apostle' (6 ATTOCTToXoj, TO dTTOffTOAiKv) - i.e. Paul (nachos) - in other words as a canonical writing, was tacitly recognised as the work of the apostle Paul. This continued without a break till 1792. Justin took no notice of Paul ; Irenaeus and Tertullian - the latter with a scornful 'haereticorum apostolus' on his lips - laboured to raise the apostle in the estimation of the faithful (cp PAUL, 48) ; but no one ever thought of doubting the genuineness of the letters attributed to the apostle - or of defending it. During the whole of that period the question did not so much as exist.

#### 2. Theory of compositness.

There is indeed a very old discussion - perhaps it had already arisen even in the second century as - to the existence of the epistle in two forms, a longer and a shorter, even after omission of the two last chapters (15, 16). Origen taxes Marcion with this last omission ; but Origen's older contemporary Tertullian says nothing of that, though he several times reprimands the heretic for having tampered with the text of chaps. 1-14. The probability is that Tertullian had no acquaintance with chaps. 15-16. At any rate, he made no citation from them in his polemic against Marcion (adv. Marc. 5:13-14), although in its course he leaves none of the previous chapters (1-14) unreferred to and speaks of one expression - 'tribunal Christi' (14:10) - as written 'in clausula [epistulae]' ; cp van Manen, Paulus, 2:101-118.

In recent times the tradition of the text as regards chaps. 15-16 has frequently come under discussion. The conclusion is not only that the chapters in question were unknown to Marcion and probably also to other ancient witnesses, including Irenaeus and Cyprian, but also that there were in circulation at an early date MSS. in which the doxology Rom. 16:25-27 either occurred alone immediately after 14:23 or was entirely wanting (cp Ti. ; Sanday-Headlam, Comm. (1895), 89-90. ; S. Davidson, Intr.(3), 1894, 1:120-123).

To these facts were added, at a later date, considerations based on the contents of chaps. 15-16 tending to show that they hardly fitted in with chaps. 1-14. Semler (Diss. de duplici appendice ep. Pauli ad Rom. 1767 ; Paraphrases ep. ad Romanes, 1769), soon afterwards supported by Eichhorn (Einl. in das NT), held chap. 15-16 to be by Paul but not to have originally belonged to the Epistle to the Romans. Baur (Tub. Zischr., 1836, Paulus, 1845, cp Paulus (2), [1866] 1:393-409), followed, in the main, among others bv Schwegler (Nachap. Zeitalter), Zeller (ACL), S. Davidson (Introd. (3), 1894, 1:123-131), and controverted by Kling (St.Kr., 1837), l^ 6 Wette and others, maintained the piece to be spurious. Since Baur, many scholars have endeavoured to steer a middle course by seeking - in very divergent ways, it is true - for the close of the letter supposed lost, in chaps. 15, 16. So among others, Lucht (Ueber die beiden letzten Kapp. des Romerbriefs, 1871), Volkmar (Romerbrief, 1875), Scholten (Th.T, 1876), Bruckner (Reihenfoln, iSgo), Baljon {Gesch. v. d. Boeken des NVs. 1901, p. 95-96). In these various attempts an important part was always played by the conjecture, first put forth by Schulz (St. Kr., 1829), that in Rom. 16:1-20 what we really have is an epistle of Paul to the Ephesians.

In this direction - that of holding more Pauline epistles than one to have been incorporated with each other or amalgamated together to form the canonical epistle to the Romans - the way had already been led (leaving 15, 16 out of account) by Heumann in 1765.

He argued, according to Meyer (Komm. (3) [1859], etc -), for the 'strange hypothesis' that a new Epistle to the Romans begins at chap. 12, whilst chap. 16 contains two postscripts (vv. 1-24 and 25-27) to the first. Eichhorn (Einl. (2), 1827) guessed that Paul in reading over the epistle after it had been written by an amanuensis made various additions with his own hand. C. H. Weisse (Paulos. Dogm. 1855) held Rom. 9-11 to be a later insertion. He found moreover a number of minor insertions in the Epistle, and finally concluded that chaps. 9-10 + 16:1-16, 16:20b, probably had belonged originally to an Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (cp his Beitr. zur Kritik der paul. Br. 1867, edited by Sulze). Laurent (Neutest. Studien, 1866) supposed Paul to have written with his own hand to his Epistle to the Romans a number of notes which subsequently by accident found their way into the text. Kenan (St. Paul) was of opinion that Paul had published his Epistle to the Romans in several forms - e.g., chaps. 1-11 + 15; chaps. 1-14 + 16 (part) ; out of these forms the epistle known to us ultimately grew. Straatman (Th.T, 1868, 38-57), controverted by Rovers (ib. 310-325), came to the conclusion that chaps. 12-14 do not fit in with what precedes ; that these chapters along with chap. 10 belong to an Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians; and that the close of the Epistle to the Romans, properly so called, is found in chap. 15. Spitta (Zur Gesch. u. Litt. des Urchristentums, 1:16-30, 1893) contended, and at a later date (8:1-193, Jy 01 ) reaffirmed, though with some modifications of minor importance, that our Epistle to the Romans is the result of a fitting-together of two epistles written by Paul at separate times, one before and one after his visit to Rome, and addressed to the Christians there. The first and longer, a well rounded whole, consisted of 1:1-11:36, 15:8-33, 16:21-27 ; the second, partly worked into the first, has not reached us in its entirety ; we recognise with certainty only the portions : 12:1-15:7 and 16:1-20.

Pierson-Naber (Verisimilia, 1886), controverted by Kuenen (Th.T, 1886, cp van Manen, Byblad van de Hervorming, 1887, No. 4, and Bibl. mod. Theol. 1887), point to a number of joinings and sutures, traces of manipulation and compilation, in the traditional text of the Epistle to the Romans, with a view to proving its lacera conditio. Michelsen (Th.T, 1886-1887) sought to distinguish in that text five or six editions of Paul's Epistle, in the course of which various far-reaching modifications may be supposed to have been made. Sulze (Prot. Kirchenztg. 1888, no. 42) pressed still further for the recognition of additions and insertions. Volter repeated his 'Votum, etc.' (recorded in Th. T, 1889) in a separate publication (Die Komposition der paulin. Hauptbriefe, 1, 1890), and sought to prove again that our canonical Epistle to the Romans is the fruit of repeated redaction and expansion of a genuine epistle of the apostle.

Thus, there has been no lack of effort on the part of scholars to satisfy themselves and each other of the composite character of the traditional text. Equally decided, however, at least with most of them, is the opinion that nevertheless the text is, for the most part, and in the main, from the hand of Paul. This conviction was for a long time tacitly assumed, rather than explicitly expressed. So even by Baur, Weisse, and Straatman, whilst it was brought to the foreground, with friendly yet polemical emphasis, as against the representatives of 'advanced criticism', by Spitta. As regards the others mentioned above, most hesitation was to be noticed in Pierson-Naber, Michelsen, and Volter ; but even these, one and all, continued to speak of an original letter, written by Paul to the Romans.

Not a few writers continued simply to maintain the prima facie character of the canonical epistle or, as occasion offered, to defend it in their notes and discussions, commentaries and introductions.

For details, pro et contra., and some guidance through the extensive literature, the student may consult Holtzmann, Einl. W, 1892, 242-246; Sanday-Headlam, Comm. 1895, pp. 85-98; Zahn, Einl.(2), 1900, 1:268-299 for a more complete though not always accurate account of the doubts regarding the unity of the work, Clemen, Die Einheitlichkeit der paulin. Briefs, 1894, cp Th. T, 1895, 640+.

#### 3. Pauline authorship questioned.

The first to break in all simplicity with the axiom of the genuineness of our canonical epistle to the Romans, though without saying so in so many words, was E. Evanson. He appended to The Dissonance Of the four generally received Evangelists, 1792, some considerations against the justice of the received view which regarded Paul as author of the epistle - considerations based upon the contents themselves and a comparison between them and Acts (pp. 256-261). Controverted by Priestley and others, Evanson s arguments soon fell into oblivion.

Sixty years afterwards Bruno Bauer (Kritik der paulin. Briefe, 1852, 347-76) took up the work of Evanson, without, so far as appears, being acquainted with the writings of that scholar. He was not successful, however, in gaining a hearing - not at least until after he had repeated his doubts in more compendious form in his Christus u. die Caesaren (1877, pp. 371-380).

Soon afterwards A. D. Loman ( 'Qaestiones paulinae' in Th. T, 1882) developed the reasons which seemed to him to render necessary a revision of the criticism of the epistles of Paul which was then current. Without going into details as regarded Romans, he declared all the epistles to be the productions of a later time. Rud. Steck (Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht, nebst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den paulinischen. Hauptbriefen, 1888) came to the same conclusion and took occasion to point out some peculiarities connected with the Epistle to the Romans. The same investigation was more fully carried out, and substantially with the same result, by W. C. van Manen (Paulus II. De brief aan de Konteitien, 1891 ; cp Handleiding voor de Oudchr. letterkunde, 1900, ch. 3, 10-19), ar >d Prof. W. H. Smith of Tulane University, Louisiana, has recently begun independently to follow the same path. The Outlook (New York) of Nov. 1900 contained a preliminary article by him, signed 'Clericus' (a misprint for 'Criticus' ), and in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1901, a series of articles bearing the author's own name was begun - the first entitled 'Address and Destination of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans', and the second 'Unto Romans : 15 and 16'.

The newer criticism has made itself heard and goes forward on its path in spite of much opposition and strife, applauded by some, rejected by many. For its character and aims see PAUL, 34-36, and cp 37-48. Its desire is to read 'the Epistle of Paul to the Romans' as well as the rest of the canonical books without any fear of the ban that lies upon aught that may perchance prove to be contrary to tradition, whether ecclesiastical or scientific ; uninfluenced by any antecedent presumption as to the correctness of the current views as to contents, origin, or meaning of the text as it has come down to us, however highly esteemed be the quarter - Tubingen or any other - from which they have reached us ; free, too, from the dominion of any conviction, received by faith merely, and held to be superior to any test of examination, as to the epistle being indubitably the work of Paul and of Paul alone. It seeks to read the epistle in the pure light of history, exactly as it appears after repeated examination has been made on every side, as it at last presents itself to the student who really wishes to take knowledge of the contents with as little prejudice as possible.

### 4. What Rom. seems to be.

Coming before us, as it does, as a component part of the group known as 'the Epistles of Paul', handed down from ancient times, Romans appears indeed to be neither more nor less than an epistle of the apostle, written probably at Corinth and addressed to the Christians at Rome, whom he hopes to visit ere long after having made a journey to Jerusalem. Both superscription and subscription, as well as tradition, indicate this, even if we leave out of account the words 'in Rome' (tv Pti/ufl) and 'to those in Rome' (TO<S iv Pti/ufl) which are wanting in some MSS in 1:7, 1:15. We have only, in connection with the superscription and subscription, to look at the manner in which the epistle begins and ends (1:1-15, 15:14-16:27), at the way in which the writer throughout addresses his readers as brethren (1:13, 7:14, 8:12, 10:1, 11:25, 12:1, 15:14-15, 15:30, 16:17), stirs them up, admonishes them and discusses with them, as persons with whom he stands on a friendly footing, and has opened a correspondence on all sorts of subjects. The appearance of Tertius as amanuensis (16:22) need cause no surprise, it being assumed that perhaps Paul himself may not have been very ready with the pen.

### 5. Contents.

If we turn for a little from a consideration of the literary form to occupy ourselves more with the contents, the first thing that strikes us is the conspicuously methodical way in which the writer has set forth his material.

• After an address and benediction (l:1-7),
• an introduction (1:8-15),
• and a statement of what he regards as the essential matter as regards the preaching of the gospel - a thing not to be ashamed of but to be everywhere preached as a power of God for the salvation of every believer whether Jew or Greek (1:16-17) -
• come two great doctrinal sections followed by an ethical section.
• The first doctrinal section, 1:18-8:39, is devoted to the elucidation of the truth that the gospel is the means for the salvation of Jews and Greeks, because in it is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith ;
• the other, 9-11, to an earnest discussion of what seems to be a complete rejection of the Jews by God ;
• the third, the ethical section (12:1-16:13), to a setting forth of the conduct that befits the Christian both towards God and towards man in general, and towards the weak and their claims in particular.

In substance the doctrine is as follows.

• Sin has alienated all men, Jews and Gentiles alike, from God, so that neither our natural knowledge of God nor the law is able to help us ( 1:18-3:20).
• A new way of salvation is opened up, God's righteousness has been manifested (5iKaio<rvi>T) 6fou irf<t>a.vfp<j)Ta<. [dikaiosyne theou pephanerootai]) for all men without distinction, by faith in relation to Jesus Christ (3:21-31).
• It is accordingly of no importance to be descended from Abraham according to the flesh ; Abraham in the higher sense is the father of those who believe (4).
• Justified by faith, we have peace with God and the best hopes for the future (5).
• Let no one, however, suppose that the doctrine of grace, the persuasion that we are under grace, not under the law, will conduce to sin or bring the law into contempt. Such conclusions can and must be peremptorily set aside (6-7).
• The emancipated life of the Christian, free from the law of sin and death, is a glorious one (8).
• Israel, the ancient people of the promises with its great privileges, appears indeed to be rejected, yet will finally be gathered in (9-11).
• The life of Christians, in relation to God and man, must in every respect give evidence of complete renewal and absolute consecration (12:1-15:13).
• Finally, a closing word as to the apostle's vocation which he hopes to fulfil in Rome also ; a commendation of Phoebe, greetings, exhortations, benedictions, and an ascription of praise to God (15:14-16:27).

### Difficulties : not a letter.

#### Not a letter.

##### 6. Opening and close.

If, at a first inspection, the work presents itself to us as an epistle written by Paul to the Christians at Rome, on closer examination it becomes difficult to adhere to such a view. Difficuities arise on every side. To begin with - as regards the form that is assumed. We are acquainted with no letters of antiquity with any such exordium as this : 'Paul, bond-slave of Jesus Christ, called an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God ... to all those who are in Rome . . . grace to you and peace from God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ' (IlaCXos dovXos Irivov Xpicrrov, K\TJTOS a7r6<TToXos d<f>(i>picr/jL(vos fis fvayyf\iov deov . . . irauiv TO?S o^fftv ev Pw/j.ri . . . X<*P S VfJUV KO.I eip^" 7 ? ttTTO OeOV TTCLTpOS T/yltWI KO.I Kvpiov Irfffov XpicrToD) ; nor with any conclusion so high-sounding as the doxology of 16:25-27, or the prayer for the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is heard in 16:20 (or 16:24). In every other case the epistles of antiquity invariably begin plainly and simply.

Thus, for example, in the collection of Oxyrhynchus papyri (1:181) we have Eiprjvri Taovvuxfrpei. Kai $iAb>i tvtyvvftv . . . and at the close ev TrpdrTtre ; or (1:183) Xaipe a? Aioi i trioii rioi xvpt on d< Ai, >u> \aipfiv and, at the close, (ppuicrlini tre ev\onai. Greetings are indeed conveyed both from and to various persons ; but never are so many introduced as in Rom. 16:3-16, where in fact at the end all the churches salute. A letter-writer may, at the outset, seek to bring himself into closer relationship with his reader or to make himself known more exactly ; but in the many examples of real letters that have come down to us from ancient times we nowhere find anything even approaching the amplitude of Rom. 1:2-6. Nor yet does any real letter, whether intended for few or for many, so far as we are in a position to judge, ever give us cause, because by its length or its elaborate method it resembles a treatise arranged in orderly sections, to regard it as a book, as our canonical epistle to the Romans does, with its great subdivisions (already taken account of under 5). ##### 7. Style of address. We may, in truth, safely dispense with further comparison between our epistle and any real letters from ancient times, so impossible is it to regard it as an actual epistle, to whatever date, locality, or author we may assign it. How could any one at the very beginning of a letter, in which, too, the first desire he writes to express is that of writing solemnly, earnestly, directly, allow himself to expatiate, as this writer does, in such a parenthesis ? He speaks as a didactic expounder who, for the most part, directly and as concisely as possible, deals with a number of disputed points, with regard to which the reader may be supposed to be in doubt or uncertainty because in point of fact they have gained acceptance within certain circles. These expositions relate to nothing more or less than such points as the relation of the Pauline Gospel to the OT (v. 2), the descent of the Son of God from the house of David (v. 3), the evidence of the Messiahship of Jesus derived from his resurrection (v. 4), the origin and the legitimacy of the Pauline preaching (v. 5). At the same time the readers (who have not yet been named and are first addressed in v. 7) are assured that they belong to the Gentiles (Idvrj [ethne]), with reference to whom Paul has received his apostleship, although, according to 1:10-13, ne has never as yet met them and consequently has not been the means of their conversion. All this within a single parenthesis. In such wise no letter was ever begun. The writer addresses himself to 'all' the members of a wide circle - let us say in Rome ; even if the words 'in Rome' (ev Pupy) and 'those who are in Rome' (TO?? ^v PuiyUij, 1:7, 1:15), according to some MS authorities, do not belong to the original text, their meaning is assured by the superscription 'to Romans' (TT/OOS Pw/j.aiovs ; cp 16:22-29) and by the unvarying tradition as to the destination of the 'epistle'. The Paul whom we meet here addresses his discourse to a wide public, and utters in lofty tones such words as these : 'O, man, whoever thou be who judgest, etc.' (uj &vOpiaire TTO.S 6 Kpivuv K.T.\., 2:1), 'O, man, who judgest, etc.' (u> HvOpuirt 6 Kpivuiv K.T.\., 2:3), 'If thou bearest the name of a Jew, etc.' (ft de av lovSaios firovo/jLa^r; K.T.\. , 2:17), 'Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?' (w dvOpuire, fj.fi/ovvye av ris el 6 dvTa.TTOKpii bfj.fvos rip 0ew, 9:20), 'But I speak to you that are Gentiles' (V/MI> 5e X^o; TOIS ZdvenLV, 11:13), 'I say ... to every man that is among you, etc.' 1 (\eyii) . . . iravrl r<p OVTL (v vfuv K.T.\., 12:3), 'Who art thou that judgest the servant of another?' (ffv rt s fl 6 Kpivdiv d\\OTpiov oiKfTTjif, 14:4), 'But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother?' (crb S( T I Kpiveis rbv d5e\(p6v crov, 14:10), 'For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, etc.' (et yap 5ia /3pui/ua 6 doeX^os aov Xi irttrai K.T.\., 14:15), etc. Often the argument proceeds uninterruptedly for a long time without any indication of the existence of a definite circle of persons to whom it is addressed. Yet, on the other hand also, the abstract argumentation gives place to direct address, the word of admonition or exhortation spoken to the brethren (d5e\<f>oi [adelphoi]), whether named or unnamed - the mention of whom, however, when it occurs, is a purely oratorical form and no natural expression of the existence of any special relation between the writer and his assumed readers. Of the passages coming within the scope of this remark (some of them, already noticed in 4), none presents any peculiarity in this respect. On the contrary, every one of them produces uniformly the same impression ; in this manner no real letter is ever written. The last chapter has nothing of the character of a postscript to a letter already completed, although the letter appears to end with 15:30-33. Strange, in the sense of being not natural but artificial, is the appearance in 16:22 of Tertius ( 'I, Tertius, who write the epistle' : 6 ypdifsas TT)V tiriaTO\-f)v), the secretary of Paul, who, however, seems himself to have had a hand in the letter, since we find him saying in 15:15, 'I wrote to you' (ZypaiJ/a. vfj.iv). Strange especially is Tertius's greeting of the readers in his own name, in the midst of the greetings which Paul seems to be transmitting through him, vv. 21, 23. The contents of the epistle, largely consisting of argument and discussions on doctrinal theses, differ as widely as possible from what one is wont to expect in a letter - so widely that many have long laboured at the task of making a suitable paraphrase of the 'text-book' while retaining their belief in its epistolary character. (See, for example, the specimen in Holtzmann, Einl. (3), 237; cp S. Davidson, Intr. (3), 1:113-116. ) ##### 8. Supposed readers. In vain do we make the attempt in some degree to picture to ourselves what the relation was between the supposed author and his readers. Acts supplies no light. There we read that when Paul is approaching Rome the brethren go to meet him, not because they had previously had a letter from him, but because they have heard various things regarding his recent fortunes (28:14-15). As for the Jews of the metropolis, they have heard nothing either good or bad concerning him (v. 21). Tradition, apart from the NT, has equally little to say about the epistle, whether as to its reception or as to what impression it may have made. The document itself says something, but only what adds to the confusion. The truth of the matter seems unattainable. Scholars lose themselves in most contradictory conjectures as to the occasion and purpose of the writing. See, amongst others, Meyer-Weiss, Komm.(9) 1899, pp. 23-33 ; Holtzmann, Einl.(3), 236-241 ; Lipsius, Comm.(2), 1892, pp. 75- 76; Sanday-Headlam, Comm., 1895, chaps. 38-44; van Manen, Paulus, 2:20-23. Who the supposed readers of the epistle were can only be gathered from its contents. Rut these are so different in many aspects that it is possible to say with equal justice that the church in Rome was Jewish-Christian, Gentile-Christian, or a mixture of the two. Cp the various conclusions in Meyer-Weiss, 19-22 ; Holtzmann, 232-236 ; Lipsius, 70-73 ; Steck, Gal. 359-363 ; Volter, Th. T, 1889, pp. 270-272, and Komp. 8-9 ; van Manen, Paulus, 2:23-25). It may be added here that the work is throughout addressed to 'brethren' of all kinds, and sometimes it seems also to have been intended for Jews and Gentiles who stood in no connection whatever with Christianity. Did any one ever give to a particular letter an aim so general, without realising that his letter had ceased to be a letter at all in the natural meaning of the word, and had become what we are accustomed to call an open letter, an occasional writing, a book? Everything leads to the one conclusion ; the epistolary form is not real, it is merely assumed ; we have here to do, not with an actual letter of Paul to the Romans, but rather with a treatise, a book, that with the outward resem blance of a letter is nevertheless something quite different. Cp EPISTOLARY LITERATURE, 1-3 ; OLD CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 18-19 #### 9. Kind of unity. The same conclusion results from a closer examination of the whole as it lies before us, whenever we direct our attention to the connection of its several parts. The relative unity of the book there is no reason for doubting. It is not, however, unity of the kind we are accustomed to expect in a book written after more or less careful preparation, in accordance with a more or less carefully considered and logically developed plan ; not unity such as is the outcome of a free elaboration of the materials after these have been more or less diligently collected, and fully mastered by the writer. Least of all, a unity such as we look for in a letter, whether we think of it as written at one sitting or as written bit by bit and at intervals. It is rather a unity of such a sort as reminds us of that of a synoptical gospel, with regard to which no one doubts that it is the result of a characteristic process of redaction and remaniement, curtailment, correction, and supplementation by the help of older pieces drawn from other sources. It is such unity as we find in reading Acts, although we do not hesitate for a single moment to realise that Lk. has made an often very palpable use of written sources. There is unity of language and style, of thought, of feeling, of opinion ; but at the same time there are, not seldom, great diversities in all these respects. The result, obviously, of the unmistakable circumstance that the writer of the canonical epistle has made continual and manifold use of words, forms of expression, arguments, derived from sources known to him, whether retained in his memory or lying before him in written form. #### 10. Failures to find unity. Proof of the justice of this view is supplied by the various attempts made by earlier and later exegetes to expound the epistle as a completely rounded whole - attempts in which it is found necessary at every turn to resort to the assumption of all sorts of conceivable and inconceivable figures and forms of speech, and thus conceal the existence of joints and sutures, hiatuses, and unintelligible transitions. More particularly is this seen in the scientific line taken by Heumann, Semler, Eichhorn, Weisse, Straatman, Volter, Michelsen, Spitta, and so many others (some of these names are enumerated in 2), who have argued, and continue to argue, for the view that more than one epistle of Paul lies concealed in the apparently homogeneous canonical epistle, or for the view that there have been interpolations, more or less numerous, on an unusually large scale. In the last resort, on an (as far as possible) unprejudiced reading of the text which has come down to us - a reading no longer under the dominion of a foregone conclusion, to be maintained at all hazards, that here we have to do with the original work of the apostle Paul, sent by him to the church at Rome - we shall find that what lies before us is simply a writing from Christian antiquity presenting itself as such a work, which we must try to interpret as best we can. #### 11. Signs of compositeness. The traces of additions and redactions in the various sections and subsections of the epistle are innumerable. It would be superfluous, even if space allowed, to go through all the details on this head. A few examples may suffice. Compared with the first part (1:18-8:39), the second (9-11), although now an integral portion of the work, betrays tokens of an originally different source. There is no inherent connection between them, although this can, if desired, be sought in the desire to set forth a wholly new doctrinal subject in a wholly new manner. In the second we no longer hear of the doctrine of justification by faith ; the treatment of the subject enunciated in 1:16-17 is no longer continued. What takes its place is something quite different and wholly unconnected with it ; a discussion, namely, of the doctrinal question, 'Why is it that the Gentiles are admitted and Israel excluded from salvation?' This discussion is directed not, like the contents of the first part, ostensibly to Christian Jews, but to Gentiles. There is nothing in the first part that anywhere suggests any such affection for Israel as is everywhere apparent throughout the second part, and especially in 9:1-3, 10:1, 11:1, 1125-36 ; nothing that comes into comparison with the solemn declaration of 9:1 in which the writer bears witness to his great sorrow and unceasing pain of heart concerning Israel. This exordium points to a quite different situation, in which 'Paul' requires to be cleared of the reproach of not concerning himself about God's ancient people. Hence the wish expressed by him that he might become anathema from Christ (dirt> rov X/HcrToO [apo tou Christou]) for his brethren's sake, his kinsmen according to the flesh (ffvyyeveis Kara crdpna, 9 3). Hence his zeal here and in 11:1 to declare himself an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, the tribe of Benjamin. Hence also the summing-up of the ancient privilege of Israel, 'whose is the adoption and the glory and the covenants' (9:4-5), in comparison with which the simple statement that they were entrusted with the oracles of God (3:2) sinks into insignificance. In the first part a quite different tone is assumed towards the Jew ( loi Saios, 2:17), with whom the speaker appears to have nothing in common. There we find Jew and Greek placed exactly on an equality (1:16, 2:9-10, 3:9) ; the idea of the Jews that as such they could have any advantage over the heathen is in set terms controverted (2:11-3:21), and it is declared that descent from Abraham, according to the flesh, is of no value (4). Here, on the other hand (9-11), we have earnest discussion of the question how it is possible to reconcile the actual position of Israel in comparison with the Gentile world with the divine purpose and the promise made to the fathers. Here, too, a high-pitched acknowledgment of the privileges of Israel, the one good olive-tree, the stem upon which the wild olive branches - the believing Gentiles - are grafted ; Israel in the end is certain to be wholly saved, being, as touching the election, beloved for the fathers' sake (cara TT\V (K\<y^r\v dycurriToi dia roi s Trar^pas, 9:4-5, 9:31, 10:2, 11:7, 11:17-18, 11:26, 11:28). In the first part, a sharp repudiation of the law in respect of its powerlessness to work anything that is good (3:20-21, 3:27, 4:15, 6:14, 7:5, etc.) ; in the second a holding up of the giving of the law (co/nodfffia [nomothesia]) as a precious gift (9:4). In the first part the earnest claim to justification by faith (5:1), to being under grace (6:14), to a walk in newness of spirit (7:6) ; in the second the assurance that 'if thou shall confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shall believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shall be saved' (10:9). Observe, again, the difference in respect of language. The words 'just', 'justify', 'be justified' (dinaios [dikaios], SIKCUOUV [dikaioun], diKaioOadai [dikaiousthai]), nowhere occur in chaps. 9-11, nor yet the expression 'both Jews and Greeks' ( loi S. re Kal E\\. ), except in 10:12 where apparently it is not original, or at least has no meaning after the words 'for there is no distinction' (ov yap ZCFTIV diacrroXr}). The words 'Israelite' and 'Israel' are not met with in 1-8, whilst in 9-11 the first occurs thrice and the second eleven times. On the other hand, we have 'Jew' nine times in 1-3, but only twice in 9-11, and in both cases its occurrence seems probably due to the redactor. The 'adoption' (vlo0e<ria.), which, according to 8:15 (cp Gal. 4:5, Eph. 1:5) is a privilege of all Christians, whether Jews or Greeks, recurs in 9:4 in connection with a supposed predestination of Israel as the son of God ; the word is the same but it sounds quite differently. In 1-8 Christ is seven times called the son of God, and in 9-11 never. On the other hand, he is probably called God in 9:5 but nowhere in 1-8. Whilst in 1-8 we find no other form of the verb 'say' (tpelv [erein]) than 'shall we say' (epoi>fj.tv [eroumen]), in 9:19-20, 11:19 we also have 'thou wilt say' (epeis [ereis]) and 'shall the thing say?' (#pe? [erei]). If the occurrence of the expression 'what then shall we say' (rl ovv epovfj.fv) in 9:14, 9:30, as well as in 4:1, 6:1, 7:7, 8:31, points to oneness of language, it has nevertheless to be noted that in 1-8 it never, as in 9:30, is followed by a question, but always by a categorical answer. A speaker who says that Israel 'following after a law of righteousness did not arrive at [that] law' (SiuKtiiv vf>ij.ov diKa.iocrvi ris fi y VO/JLOV OVK <f>da.crtv, 931) understands by 'law' (VJ/JLOS [nomos]) something quite different, and at the same time is following a quite different use of language, from one who declares that the Jew sins 'under law' (twites [ennomoos] or iv i>6uy [en nome] ) ; shall be judged 'by law' (5id 5/j.ov, 2:12) ; doeth not 'the things of the law' (TO, rou vjfj.o\>, 2:14), is not justified 'by works of law' (* | t-pywv v6fj.ov), comes to knowledge of sin 'through law' (Sid. i>6fj.ov, 3:20) and lives 'under law' (virb vbfj.ot>, 6:14). Only the latter is thinking of the Mosaic law, about which the former would not speak so depreciatingly. In chaps. 9-11, as Steck (Gal. 362) justly remarks, a much more superficial use is made of the proof from scripture, 'and the whole representation and language is somewhat less delicate', #### 12. Third part. The third part of the epistle (12:1-15:13) seems to be closely connected with that which precedes. Observe the 'then' ([oun] : 12:1), and notice how the writer harks back to 9-11 in his declaration (15:8) that Christ has been made a minister of the circumcision with reference to the promise of God, and to 1:16-17 or 1:18-8:39 in the same declaration supplemented with the statement (15:9) that Christ appeared also that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. But the connection when more closely examined will be found to lie only mechanical. There is no real inward connection. No one expects a hortatory passage such as this after 11:33-36. Nor yet, where some would fain place it, after ch. 8 or ch. 6. The exhortations and instructions given in 12:1-15:13, however we put the different parts together, stand in no relation to the preceding argument ; the same holds good of the exordium 12:1-2. Though usual, it is not correct to say that Paul first develops his doctrinal system 1:18-11:36, and then his ethical in 12:1-15:13 ; or even to say in the modified form of the statement that he follows up the doctrinal with an ethical section. Exhortations are not wanting in the first part, nor doctrines in the last. The truth is that in 1:18-11:36 the doctrinal element is prominent, just as the hortatory is in 12:1-15:13. In other words, the two pieces are of different character. They betray difference of origin. 12:1-15:13 is, originally, not a completion of 1-11, thought out and committed to writing by the same person, but rather - at least substantially - an independent composition, perhaps, it may be, as some have conjectured, brought hither from another context. It has more points of agreement with certain portions of the Epistles to the Corinthians than with Rom. 1-11. Compare, in general, the manner of writing and the nature of the subjects treated. In detail, compare such expressions as 'beseech . . . by' (TrapaxaAu) . . . 6ia), 12:1, with 1 Cor. 1:10, 2 Cor. 10:1, whereas 'beseech' (irapa<coAeu [parakalein]), however Pauline, is found neither in Rom. 1-11 nor in Gal. : the 'mercies' (oiKTipnoC [oiktirmoi]) of God, 12:1, with the 'mercies' (oiKTip;iOi) of the Father in 2 Cor. 1:3, but nowhere named in Rom. 1-11 ; 'this age' (o aiiav o5ro?) 12:2, with 1 Cor. 1:20, 2:68, 3:18, 2 Cor. 4:4, but not found in Rom. 1-11 ; the representation that the Christian can still be renewed by the renewing of the mind (avaxaiixaa-tf rov fpos : 12:2) with the assurance that though the outer man perish, 'that which is within us is renewed day by day' (6 eo-o> lijjucui [drflpuirros] a.va.Kau ovTa.1 ^/u-epf Kal r)fj.fpq, 2 Cor. 4:16) whereas Rom. 1-11 knows nothing of this renewal, and could hardly have introduced it alongside of its doctrine that the Christian is dead so far as sin is concerned (6:2) so that he now stands in the service of newness of spirit (7:6). Compare, again, the assurance that God gives to each a measure of faith (exaa-ni) fj.frpoi TriVrecos : 12:3) with 'only, as the Lord has supplied to each' (el /JITJ fxaima tos fjit^fpiKef, 1 Cor. 7:14), 'according to the measure of the province (RVmg., or limit) which God apportioned to us as a measure' (icaTa TO fierpov TOV KO.VQVO<;, ov efifpurfv rjjKCf o flebj nerpov . 2 Cor. 10:13), and the declaration that not every one receives faith through the spirit (1 Cor. 12:9), as also that there is a still more excellent way than that implied in the spiritual gifts of which faith is one, - namely, love (1 Cor. 12:31), - whereas not only are the words 'apportion' (/otepi feu [merizein]) and 'measure' (li(Tpoi [metron]) unknown to Rom. 1-11, but so also is 'love' (ayairrj [agape]) in the sense of love to God and one's neighbour, and (equally so) a faith (Trams [pistis]) which is not regarded as the beginning of a new life, in comparison with which love is not required simply because that and everything else that is needed is already possessed where faith is ; the distinction between various spiritual gifts (12:6-8)compared with 1 Cor. 12:4-11 and 28-30; the whole attitude towards self-exaltation (12:3-8) compared with 1 Cor. 4:6-7 and 12:12-30; the exhortations to the practice of love, zeal, and purity (12:9-21 and 18:8-14) compared with i1 Cor. 13; 14:1-20:39, 15:58, 5:11, 6:9-11, 6:16-20, where, amongst other things, the occurrence of 'cleave' (icoAAacrflai [kollasthai]) in Rom. 12:9 and 1 Cor. 6:16-17, though nowhere else to be found in the Pauline epistles, is to be noticed; the occurrence also of 'taking thought for things honourable in the sight of all men' (irpoi-oov- juei oi KaAa ti iuiriov TrdfTtav avSpunnov . Rom. 12:17) as compared with the only parallel expression 'for we take thought for things honourable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men' (jrporoov/itei vap KaAa ov /uidi or evutirioi Kvpiov aAAa KOI ii umiov arOptamar . 2 Cor. 8:21 ; cp Prov. 8:4); fxf>ei\eiv [opheilein] 13:8 used several times also in i and 2 Cor. but never in Rom. 1-11 ; the special exhortations to subjection to authority and to due discharge of one's various obligations (13:1-7) indicative of a peaceful environment and hardly in keeping with the persecutions suggested by the closing verses of chap. 8, but on the other hand quite in accord with the special admonitions and exhortations of 1 Cor. 1:10+, 5, 6:1-11, 11:2-15, etc. ; what is said in chap. 14 regarding the use of certain meats, the observance of sacred days, and the respect for the weak, with regard to which no word is found in 1-1), but which reminds us throughout of 1 Cor. 8-10, not only by reason of the similarity of such expressions as 'eat' (futiift-v [esthiein]), 'food' (ftpiafia [brooma]), 'cause to stumble' (<Ticai 6aA(. eti [skandalizein]), 'a stumbling-block to the brother' (7rpoaxoju.jiia Tt3 a6eA<>u> [proskomma too adelphoo]), 'not to eat flesh' (/u. <f>ayeiv Kpe a [me phagein krea]), etc., but also very specially by reason of the agreement in the central thought that to the fully developed Christian all things are allowed, but that he must give no offence to the weak brother and therefore ought rather to act as if he were still in bondage to ancient customs and usages. #### 13. Chap. 15-16 not original. The conclusion of the canonical epistle 15:14-16:27 must be accepted, as such, notwithstanding the objections urged by Semler, and those who follow him in rejecting chaps. 15-16 - as not original constituents of the writing sent by Paul to the Romans. It nevertheless shows many evidences of compilation by the aid of various pieces at the redactor's disposal, a process to which reference has already so often been made that it seems superfluous to dwell long upon it now. Let the reader but observe the disconnected character of the five pieces of which ch. 16 consists, each of which either has no relation to the preceding, or is in contradiction with it. The recom mendation of Phoebe v. 1-2 hangs in the air. The greetings of vv. 3-16 presuppose a previous residence of Paul at Rome and a circle of acquaintances formed there, notwithstanding the positive statements on the subject in 1:8-13 and 15:22-23. The warning against false teachers in vv. 17-20 finds no point of attachment in what precedes. The greetings of others in vv. 21-23 raise unanswered questions, not the least of these being those which arise in view of the existence of the already complete list in 3-16, and the mention of all the churches at the close. The detached character of the doxology in vv. 25-27 is shown by the fact that in many MSS it occurs after 14:23. #### 14. Traditional theory. The examples cited, along with others which might be adduced (cp van Manen, Paulus, 2:34-101), show conclusively that the epistle has been compiled with the help of previously existing documents. There are also other reasons, however, against accepting the voice of tradition regarding the origin of the work.NXow and then the contents themselves reveal quite clearly that they cannot be from Paul (ofr. 64 A. D. ), so that we have no need to dwell upon the improability of supposing that Paul, a tentmaker by calling and personally unknown to the Christians at Rome, addressed to that place an epistle so broad and so deep, written in so exalted and authoritative a tone ; nor upon the question as to how it was possible that such an epistle should, so far as appears, have failed to make the slightest impression, whether good or bad, at the time, and was doomed to lie for more than half a century buried in the archives of the Christian church at Rome in impenetrable obscurity, until suddenly it re-emerged to light, honoured and quoted as an authority by the gnostics ! Kvanson long ago (1792) pointed to the fact that the church addressed in it was apparently of long standing, and to the silent assumption in 11121521-22 [or -2]. that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was a thing of the past. As regards the first of these points, he compared what is said in Acts and called attention to the fact that nothing is there said of any project of Paul's to visit Rome before he had been compelled by Festus to make appeal to the emperor (28:10-12), nor yet anything about an Epistle to the Romans or about any Christian community of any kind met there by the apostle (28:11-31). Yet even if we leave Acts out of account as being incomplete and not in all respects wholly trustworthy, what the epistle itself says and assumes with regard to the Christian church at Rome is assuredly a good deal more than, in all probability, could have been alleged about it at so early a date as 59 A. D., the year in which it is usually held to have been written by Paul. #### 15. Reflection of later age. The faith of the Roman Church is supposed to be known throughout the whole world ; and Paul is filled with desire to make its acquaintance in order that so he may be refreshed (1:8, 1:12). The faith of both rests on the same foundation. The Christians of Rome are Pauline Christians. Like him they are justified by faith (5:1); reconciled with God (5:11) ; free from the dominion of sin and now in the unin terrupted service of God (8:18-22) ; no longer under the law but under grace, so that they now live in newness of spirit and not in oldness of the letter (6:15, 7:6). They are well acquainted with Paulinism. They know it as a definite form of doctrine and have fully and freely given their assent to it 'Ye were servants of sin but ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered' (ijre SoOAoi rf/s a^apTta?, vm]KOv<TaTe 8f ex Kap6i as ets oi TrapeSoSr/Tf TVTTOV SiSa^r;? : 6:17). It is possible to speak to them without any fear of misunderstanding, about 'faith' (TTUTTIS) and 'grace' (^opis), 'righteousness' (6nccuocrui T)) and 'love' (ayaTrr), 'believing' (iricrreveti/) and being 'justified' (SucaiovcrSai), being 'justified by faith' (&LKatov<r9ai ex Trt oTetos) and by 'works of law' (e epyiar I O^iou), sinning 'without law' (i/j.apTavei.v arofxcus) and 'under law' (eri O/xujs or (v vofiw), being 'delivered up' (TrapafioSrji ai) and 'dying for men' (anoOoLveiv virep ai Opuimav), 'redemption' (aTroAvTpiotris)) 'being baptized into Christ' (fia.imadi\va.i. ets Xptcrroi ), 'being crucified with [Christ]' ((TV<TTavpova8a.i [\pirrTfa]) ; 'living after the flesh' (jJVji* Kara crdpica), 'after the spirit' (Kara 7ri eup.a), 'to God' (rta 0t<3), 'in Christ' (ev Xpicrrai) ; to use such expressions as : 'for there is no distinction' (oi yap (<TTIV 6iaaToArj : 3:22) ; 'but where there is no law neither is there transgression' (ou 6e OVK f<mv vo/j.o<; ov&f 7rapd/3o.cris : 4:15) ; 'but where sin abounded, grace abounded more exceedingly' (oC 6e eTr\(6va.<rev r) a^aprta, VTT(pfnepicr<rfv<r(v i] \pis : 5:20); 'to be under law', 'under grace' (cipai VTTO voftov, iiirb \api.v . 6:14); 'spirit of adoption', 'Abba, Father' (nvevfj-a. viotfecri as, A/3(3a 6 wa-njp : 8:15); to throw out such questions as these : Whether or not there be with respect to Jews and Greeks 'respect of persons with God' (7rpo<r(o7roArjnxi//ia wapa ea> 2:11)? Has the Jew as such any advantage over the Greek, when both have sinned (3:9-20)? In how far does any importance at all still attach to circumcision (2:25-29)? What value has the law (2:12-29, 3:19-22, 3:27-31, 7:1-6)? Does faith ever make it void (3:31)? In what sense may we pride ourselves on having Abraham to our father (4)? Must we not think that the doctrine of grace leads to continuance in sin (6:1)? Is not the conviction that we are not under the law but under grace, conducive to sin (6:15)? Can the law be held responsible for sin because by means of the law we were brought to the knowledge of sin (7:7)? #### 16. A developement. All this is unthinkable at so early a date as the year 59 A. D. There is, moreover, the one great simple fact which overrides these considerations, and thrusts them so to speak into the background this, namely, that the Paulinism with which we are made acquainted in the Pauline Epistles, and particularly in that to the Romans, is of more recent date than the historical Paul. Compared with what the first disciples of Jesus believed and professed, it is not merely a remarkable divergence ; it is in point of fact a new and higher development from the first Christianity. It presupposes, to speak with Loman, a 'richly developed stage of theological thought'. It has learned to break with Judaism and to regard the standpoint of the law as once for all past and done with, substituting in its place that of grace as the alone true and valid one. The new life under grace stands in sharp antithesis to the old one under the law (6:14 [or 5:14]). It knows, and it is, a new divine revelation ; it has a theology, a christology, and a soteriology, which bear witness to a more advanced thinking and to a deeper experience of life than could possibly have been looked for within the first few years after the crucifixion. It is a remarkable forward step, a rich and far-reaching reform of the most ancient type of Christianity ; now, a man does not become at one and the same moment the adherent of a new religion and its great reformer. All attempts to escape the difficulty so far as Paul is concerned break down in presence of the obvious meaning of Gal. 1:11-23 ; as was shown years ago by Blom against Straatman (Th.T, 1875, 1-44). It is of no avail continually to hark back to the possibility which, in fact, no one denies of a development in Paul's mind during the years that elapsed between his conversion and the writing of his epistles. The Paulinism of the epistles in question is, on their own showing, in its main features at least (with which we are here concerned) as old as the Christian life of Paul ; but such a Paulinism is even for thoughtful believers in the supernatural inconceivable as having come into existence immediately after Paul had become a Christian. Let the student read and ponder the sketch of Paulinism given by van Manen in Paulus, 2:126-140, cp 211-217 and in PAUL, 40. #### 17. Kinship with gnosis. The kinship of Paulinism (especially in the form in which it occurs in the Epistle to the Romans) with gnosis, which has been recognised and remarked both by older and by younger critics - amongst others by Basilides, Marcion, Valentinus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Holsten, Hilgenfeld, Scholten, Heinrici, Pfleiderer, Weizsacker, Harnack (cp van Manen, Paulus, 2:154-166) - leads also to the same conclusion : that Paul cannot have written this epistle. As to the precise date at which (Christian) gnosis first made its appearance there may be some measure of uncertainty : whether in the last years of Trajan (ob. 117 A.D. ), as is commonly supposed, or perhaps some decades earlier ; in no event can the date be carried back very far, and certainly not so far back as to within a few years of the death of Jesus. With regard to this it is not legitimate to argue, with Baljon (Gesch. 77), that in the Pauline gnosis 'no doctrine of a demiurge, no theory of aeons is found'. It is years since Harnack (DG (2) 1:196-197) rightly showed that the essence of the matter is not to be looked for in such details as these. #### 18. Other signs of later age. In addition to the assumed acquaintance (already remarked on) of the readers of the epistle with the Pauline gospel, there are other peculiarities that indicate the church addressed as one of long standing. It is acquainted with various types of doctrine (6:17). It can look back upon its conversion as an event that had taken place a considerable time ago (13:11). It has need of being stirred up to a renewal of its mind (122) and of many other exhortations (12-14). It has in its midst high-minded persons whose thoughts exalt themselves above the measure of faith given them (12:3). It does not seem superfluous to remind them that each belongs to the other as members of one body endowed with differing gifts. There are prophets, ministers, teachers, exhorters, givers, rulers, and those who show mercy, and it appears to be necessary that each should be reminded of what he ought to do or how he ought to behave. The prophet must keep within the limits of the faith that has been received, and be careful to speak according to the proportion of that faith (/caret TTJV dvaXoyiav rijs iriareus, 12:6) ; the minister, the teacher, and the exhorter must each busy himself exclusively with the work entrusted to him ; the giver must discharge his task with simplicity, the ruler his with diligence ; he that shows mercy is to do so with cheerfulness (12:4-8). The mutual relations must be considered anew and carefully regulated, both in general (12:9-21, 13:8-10), and, in particular, with respect to the special 'necessities of the saints', the duty of hospitality, the attitude to be maintained towards persecutors (12:12+), the public authority, and the fulfilment of the duties of citizenship (13:1-7). A vigorous exhortation to vigilance and an earnest warning against revellings and drunkenness, chambering and wantonness, strife and envy, are not superfluous (13:11-14). There are weak ones in the faith, who avoid the use of wine and flesh (14:1-2, 14:21); others who hold one day holy above others, and as regards their food consider themselves bound by obsolete precepts regarding clean and unclean (14:5-6, 14:14-15, 14:20). Others again who regard all these things with lofty disdain, making no distinction between clean and unclean food, deeming that they are free to eat and drink as they choose, and that all days are alike ; but these, just because of the freedom they rejoice in, give offence to many brethren and are the cause of their moral declension (14:5-6, 13:15, 13:20-23). These divergent practices have already continued for so long that the writer, so far as the first two (wine and flesh, clean and unclean) are concerned, is in perplexity between them himself, and has no other plan than to raise himself above them all in order to urge a general point of view - a genuinely 'catholic' one - of 'give and take', in which the principle of freedom is recommended and its application urged in the fine maxims : let no one give offence, let each one be fully persuaded in his own mind, all that is not of faith is sin (14:5, 13:23). The church is exposed to persecution ; it suffers with Christ. It has need of comfort. What is said in this connection cannot be explained from any circumstances at Rome known to us before Nero and the time of the great fire in 64. It points rather to later days when Christians were continually exposed to bloody persecutions. See 5:3-5, 8:17-39, 12:12, 12:14. One decisive proof that in our epistle we are listening to the voice of one who lived after the death of Paul in 64 A. D. is to be found in the manner in which the question of the rejection of Israel is handled in chaps. 9-11. That question could not thus occupy the foreground or bulk so largely in the minds of Christian writers and readers as long as Jerusalem was still standing, and there was nothing to support the vague expectation of its approaching overthrow which some entertained. The allusions to the great events of the year 70, the overthrow of the Jewish commonwealth, and the expectations which connected themselves with this event are manifest. Any one who will read what is said, particularly in 11:11-22, about the downfall of the Jews (rb irapd- wTwu.a avru>v), about the branches that have been broken off (e^K\a.ff6-riffa.v K\dSoi) and the 'cutting off' (diroTOfiia [apotomia]) which has come upon those who are fallen (^TTI TOI)S TrecnWas [epi tous pesontas]), can be under no misapprehension on this point. #### 19. Conclusion. If we now sum up the points that have been touched on in 6-18, we need have no hesitation in deciding that the arguments are convincing : our canonical Epistle to the Romans is not what it seems to be, not a letter written by the apostle and sent to a definite church ; it is a tractate, a book, designed to be read aloud at Christian meetings, a piece to be read in Church (kirchliches Vorlesungsstuck), or homily, as Spitta (Zur Gesch. 3:59) has phrased it. It is a book written in the form of a letter, not written after the kind of preparation with which we write our books, but compiled rather in a very peculiar manner by use of existing written materials wherein the same subjects were treated in a similar or at least not very divergent way. We can best form some conception of the method followed here by studying the text of one of the synoptical gospels with an eye to the method in which it was presumably composed ; or by tracing in detail the manner in which such authors as the writer of the present epistle make use of the OT. They quote from its words alternately verbatim and freely, often, too, without any reference to the OT context, so that we can trace the question only by comparison of the text we possess which has been wholly or partly followed (cp van Manen, Paulus, 2:217-9). The study of the 'epistle' from the point of view of its probable composition, enables us to distinguish what treatises or portions of treatises were probably made use of before the text came into existence in its present form. In this way the work as a whole makes us acquainted with underlying views then prevalent, and accepted or controverted by our author - • on the universality of sin and its fatal consequences (1:18-3:20); • on righteousness by faith (3:21-31); • on the connection between this and Abraham as father of the faithful (4); • the fruits of justification (5); • three objections against Paulinism (6:1-14, 6:15-7:6, 7:7-25); • the glories of the new life in Christ (8); • the rejection of the Jews (9-11); • what is the duty of Christians towards God and man generally, and towards the weak and the principles held by them in particular (12:1-15:13). Such views, however greatly they may vary in purpose and scope, all belong to one main direction, one school of thought, the Pauline. We give them this name because we gain our best and most comprehensive acquaintance with the school from the 'epistles of Paul', just as we speak of the Johannine School and the Johannine tendency, although we know nothing about the connection between the school or tendency on the one side, and the well-known apostolic name connected with it on the other. To suppose that the school originated from the historical Paul, as was formerly maintained by Steck, is possible ; but the supposition finds no support in any historical facts with which we are acquainted (cp Paulus, 2:222-227). ### 20. The author. What is certain, at any rate, is that the canonical epistle is not by Paul. A writing that is so called, but on closer examination is seen to be no epistle but rather a compilation, in which, moreover, are embedded pieces that plainly show their origin in a later time, cannot possibly be attributed to the 'apostle of the Gentiles'. In this connection, however, it is inappropriate to speak of deception or forgery or pious fraud. There is not the slightest reason for supposing that our author had the faintest intention of misleading his readers, whether contemporaries or belonging to remote posterity. He simply did what so many others did in his day ; he wrote something in the form (freely chosen) of a tractate, a book, or an epistle, under the name of some one whom he esteemed or whose name he could most conveniently and best associate with his work, without any wrong intention or bad faith, because he belonged or wished to be thought to belong, to the party or school which was wont to rally under his master's standard. His own name remained unknown ; but his nom de plume was preserved and passed from mouth to mouth wherever his work was received and read. What reason was there for inquiring and searching after his real name if the work itself was read, quoted, copied, and circulated with general approval ? The work might bear evidence of the artist so far as concerned person, surroundings, sufferings. In this case, according to the epistle, he was a Christian, one of the Pauline School, a polished and educated man with a heart full of zeal for the religious needs of humanity : a Paulinist, however, of the right wing. #### 21. His method. He raises himself above the different shades of opinion which he knows so well by letting them find alternate expression, by letting the voice now of the one and now of the other be heard. He gives utterance to words so sharply explicit as these : 'by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight' (3:20); 'now are we delivered from the law wherein we were held' (7:6); but also to other words, so friendly in their tone as regards the very same law : 'not the hearers . . . but the doers of the law shall be justified' (2:13) ; 'the law is holy', 'spiritual' (7:12, 7:14). He asseverates that there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (3:22); that there is with God no acceptance of persons (2:11); and that the privileges of the Jew are many (3:1-2); that Israel is in a very special way the people of God (9:4-5, 11:1). He says that to be a son of Abraham after the flesh signifies nothing (4:1+), and that to be of the seed of Abraham is a specially great privilege (11:1). He recognises at one time that the wrath of God is now manifest upon the sins of men (1:18), and at another that this is yet to come (2:5-8). He speaks of it as a matter of experience that the Christian has broken with sin for good and has become a wholly new creature (5:1-7:6 and 8), and also lays down a quite different doctrine to the effect that he is still 'sold under sin', continually doing the thing he would not, and he longs for emancipation from the body (7:7-25). He embraces the doctrine of a redemption of man from a power hostile to God on the ground of the love of the father (3:24, 5:1, 8:3, 8:32), and with this he associates the thought of an atoning sacrifice on behalf of the sinner offered to God by Christ 'in his blood' (3:25). Paul is to him the called apostle of the Gentiles (1:1, 1:5, 1:13-14, 15:16, 15:18); but also warmly attached to the Jews and ready to do everything for them (9:1-3, 10:1, 11:1); in possession of the 'first fruits of the spirit', always working in the power of God's spirit, but also in the manner of the original apostles 'in the power of signs and wonders' (15:19). He recognises Jesus as God's son, who has appeared 'in the likeness of sinful flesh' (8:3, 8:32) ; but he also says that he is of Israel according to the flesh (9:5), and that he was first exalted to the dignity of divine sonship by his resurrection (1:3-4, 15:12). He speaks with the same facility of 'Jesus', 'Jesus Christ', and 'our Lord Jesus Christ' as he speaks of 'Christ' and 'Christ Jesus'. For him all distinction in the use of these various designations has practically disappeared. Not seldom do we find him affirming and denying on the same page. He knows how to give and take, when to evade arguments, and when to meet them. Already we perceive in him something of the 'catholic' spirit which rises above the strife of parties ; which serves the truth and promotes the unity of believers, by siding now with the right wing, now with the left, by gliding over thorny points, and boldly thrusting difficulties aside. #### 22. His origin. As for origin, he was probably a Greek. He thinks in Greek, speaks Greek, and seems to have used no other books than those which he could have consulted in Greek (cp Paulus, 2:186-190). His home we can place equally well in the E. or in the W. In the E. , and particularly in Antioch or elsewhere in Syria, because Paulinism probably had its origin there. The catholic strain, on the other hand, within the limits of the Pauline movement, seems rather to have proceeded from Rome. The possibility is not excluded that the main portions of the letter, or if you will, of a letter, to the Romans, were written in the E. , and that the last touches were put to it in Rome or elsewhere in the W. ; in other words, that it was there that the epistle took the final form in which we now know it. There is a considerable number of writings which passed over from the hands of the Gnostics into those of 'catholic'-minded Christians, and in the transition were here and there revised and corrected, brought into agreement, somewhat more than appeared in their original form, with the prevailing type of what was held to be orthodox (cp Lipsius, Apokr. Ap.-gesch. 1883-1887 ; Usener, Rel.-gesch. Unters. 1, 1889; van Manen, Paulus, 2:227-230). ### 23. Date. The author has not given us the date of his work, and we can guess it only approximately. Broadly speaking, we may say, not earlier than the end of the first nor later than the middle of the second century. Not before the end of the first century, because after the death of Paul (about 64 A.D. ) time enough must be allowed to admit of epistles being written in his name as that of a highly placed and authoritative exponent of Christianity, - the representative, not to say the 'father', of Paulinism, a forward-reaching spiritual movement, a deeply penetrating and largely framed reform of that oldest Christianity which embodied the faith and expectations of the first disciples of Jesus after the crucifixion. Paulinism in this sense certainly did not come into existence until after the downfall of the Jewish state in 70 A. D. , and - if we consider its kinship with gnosticism, and various other features which it shows - surely not before the end of the first, or the beginning of the second, century. On the other side, we may venture to say, not later than the middle of the second century. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Irenaeus, use the book towards the end of that century, and we may be sure did not hold it for a recent composition. So also Theophilus ad Autolycum, 3:14, who about 180 A.D. cited Rom. 13:7-8 as 'divine word' (Oetoj \&yos [theios logos]), Basilides (125), and Marcion, who made his appearance at Rome in 138, knew the epistle as an authoritative work of 'the apostle'. Aristides (125-126), James (130), 1 Peter (130-140) in like manner show acquaintance with the epistle. Various circumstances combined justify the supposition that it was written probably about 120 A. D. , whilst some portions of it in their original form may be regarded as somewhat earlier (cp Paulus, 2:296-303, 3:312-315). #### 24. Value. If, in conclusion, we are met by the question, 'What is the value of the writing when one can no longer regard it as an epistle of Paul to the Romans?' It must never be forgotten that the incisiveness of its dialectic, the arresting character of certain of its passages, the singular power especially of some of its briefer utterances and out pourings of the heart, the edifying nature of much of the contents, remain as they were before. The religious and ethical value, greater at all times than the aesthetic, is not diminished. The historical value, on the other hand, is considerably enhanced. True, we no longer find in it, what we were formerly supposed to find, the interesting (though in large measure not well understood) writing of the apostle, written, in the days of his activity among the Gentiles, to a church which was personally unknown to him. But what have we in its place ? A book of great significance for our knowledge of the ancient Christianity that almost immediately succeeded the apostolic (the Christianity of the disciples of Jesus in the years that followed his death). There is no work from Christian antiquity that contributes more largely to our knowledge of Paulinism (whether in its first form - a form in which it has not reached us in any deliberate writing or in its subsequent development) in its strength as an inspiring directory for conduct, and in the richness and depth of its religious thought and experience. ### 25. Defenders of genuineness. No serious efforts to defend the genuineness of the epistle have as yet ever been attempted. Those offered casually and in passing, as it were, rely (as for example in Meyer-Weiss, Komm. (9), 1899, 33-34, and in S. Davidson, Introd. (3), 1894, 117-119, 150-2) on the so-called external evidence. That is to say, its defenders rely on what is excellent proof of the existence of the epistle at the time when it was cited, or what clearly presupposes an acquaintance with it, but is of no significance whatever when the question is whether the work was in reality written by the individual who from the first was named as its author. This the Tubingen school have long perceived ; Baur also did not rely on such arguments. Instead of doing so he thus expressed himself (Paulus 1(2), 1866, 276) : 'Against these four epistles (Rom. , i and 2 Cor. , Gal.) not only has even the slightest suspicion of spuriousness never been raised, but in fact they bear on their face the mark of Pauline originality so uncontestably that it is impossible to imagine by what right any critical doubt could ever possibly assert itself regarding them'. The utterance, it will be observed, wholly ignores Evanson, 1792, and of course also Bruno Bauer, who did not publish his criticism till 1851 ; but it also ignores the view taken by so many, including F. C. von Baur himself, who have vied with one another in the disintegration of the epistle, as also the possibility that yet others at a later date might perceive what Baur himself had not observed ; nor yet does it take account of the unsatisfactoriness of any assertion (however plausible it may sound) as to the 'originality' of Paul, whom after all we know only by means of the picture that has been constructed with the aid of those very epistles with regard to which we wish to inquire whether they really were written by him. Nothing therefore is added to the argument when a countless host of others since Baur are never weary of repeating that 'even the Tubingen school' have raised no doubts as to the genuineness. The observation is correct, it is true. Only they forget to add : nor yet have they offered proofs that it is genuine. Meyer-Weiss, S. Davidson, and others remain equally sparing of their arguments even after the criticism of a later date has made its voice heard. They put it aside with a single word. Weiss, with a reference to a 'Parody', by C. Hesedamm, Der Romerbrief beurtheilt u. geviertheilt, 1891. Davidson, with the observation that the genuineness, apart from the conclusive testimony of witnesses, is fully guaranteed by internal evidence. 'The internal character of the epistle and its historical allusions coincide with the external evidence in proving it an authentic production of the apostle. It bears the marks of his vigorous mind ; the language and style being remarkably characteristic'. He omits, however, to tell us how he knows that anything is a 'production', not to say an 'authentic production of the apostle' ; nor yet how he has obtained his knowledge of the mind of Paul ; nor yet why it is impossible for a pseudonymous author to have any characteristic language and style. Harnack (ACL ii. 1 [1897] p. vii) considers himself absolved from going into the investigation until the representatives of the newer criticism 'shall have rigorously carried out the task incumbent on them of working out everything pertaining to the subject afresh'. Julicher (Einl., 1894, p. 17, 1901 (2), p. 19) once and again resorted to a severe attack on hypercriticism and pseudocriticism, and subsequently proceeded, in dealing with the Epistle to the Romans, as if nobody had ever at any time argued against its genuineness. Sanday and Headlam (Comm. , 1895, pp. 85-98) discuss exhaustively the integrity of the epistle, especially as regards chaps. 15-16, but say little about the history of the question of genuineness. They cursorily dismiss some of the objections without showing that they have really grasped their proper significance. Counter-arguments are practically not heard. So also in other commentaries whose authors had heard anything about the newer criticism referred to. Holsten ( 'Krit. Briefe lib. die neueste paulin. Hypothese' in Prot. Kirchenztg., 1889), Pfleiderer (Paulinismus (2), 1890), Holtzmann (Einl.W, 1892), Lipsius (//C< 2) , 1892, pp. 83/1 ), and others, made some general observations in favour of the genuineness that had been called in question. But these discussions were little more than insignificant 'affairs of outposts' ; no real battle was delivered nor even any serious attack prepared. Then came Zahn (Einl. (2), 1900, 1:3) with his censure on his comrades in arms against the Tubingen school for their error in having defended indeed the genuineness of the epistles 'rejected' by Baur, but not that of the 'principal epistles', although Baur and his disciples had never so much as even attempted any proof for the positive part of their results. Forthwith he addressed himself to the long postponed task. He gave some half-dozen general observations (pp. 112-116) not differing in substance from those which had already been made ; referred to the various particular investigations to be made in a later part of the work, including the detailed treatment of the Epistle to the Romans (pp. 251-310) where 31 full pages are devoted to the subject of the integrity and not a single word to the question of genuineness. Baljon ( Gesch. , 1901) perceived that something more than this was necessary to put the newer criticism to silence, if it was wrong. But what he wrote with this end in view was neither (as might have been expected) a confutation of the objections urged, nor yet an argument for the genuineness at least as solid and good as (in intention at all events) that made on behalf of Philippians, but simply a couple of pages (pp. 97-100) devoted to the history of the newer criticism and a few observations upon the objections urged by van Manen. So far as appears, no one has as yet addressed himself to the task of an orderly scientific discussion of the arguments on the other side, or to an effective setting forth of the arguments on behalf of the genuineness. ### 26. Literature. Good commentaries though all, it may be remarked, written from the point of view of an undisputed and therefore indisputable genuineness are those of B. Weiss (6) (= Meyer- WeusW), 1899, R. A. Lipsius (//CC- I, 1892), W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam (Int. Crit. Comm. 1895). They all take account of their important predecessors (see Weiss 39-43, Lipsius vii-viii, Sanday xcviii-cix), amongst whom are Origen (at. 254), Chrysostom (eb. 407), Melanchthon (1560), Calvin (1564), Grotius (1645), Tholuck(i877), Riickert (1839)12), j. G. Reiche (1833-34), C. F. A. Fritzsche (1836-43), van Hengel (1854-59), de Wette (i847)c tl ; as also of the works of H. Alford (ob. 1871), B. Jowett (1855, 1859)121, C. A. Vaughan (i8 74 )r>, W. Kelly (1873), F. Godet (1879, ET 1881), G. Volkmar (1875). Cp H. J. Holtzmann, P. mi die Romer (1901) ; A. D. Loman, Quaest. Paulinje, Th. T (1882) ; R. Steck, Gal. (1888), 154-161, 359-363, 374-382, W. C. van Manen, I aulus II. : De brief aan de Rom. (1891). W. C. v. M. ## ROME (CHURCH) • Not founded by Peter and Paul (1-2). • Not by Peter alone (3). • Not by Paul (4-7). • Origin among Jews in Rome (8-9). • Age (10-12). • Character (13-16). • Constitution and government (17-18). • Influence and importance (19-20). • Bibliography (21). ### 1. Peter-Paul tradition. The earliest period of the Christian community in Rome is wrapped in impenetrable obscurity. Tradition attributes its founding to the joint labours of the apostles Peter and Paul. This tradition, however, is unworthy of our confidence. It is comparatively recent. The oldest traces of its existence do not go back farther than to the close of the second century. According to a notice in Eusebius (HE 2:25:8), Dionysius of Corinth, about the year 170 A.D. , or somewhat later (see OLD CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 31), wrote to the Romans as follows : 'So also by this so weighty admonition [of yours] - the allusion is to the epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians (=1 Clem.) - ye have brought together [anew] that planting [aforetime] made by Peter and Paul, of the [churches of the] Romans and of the Corinthians. For, indeed, these two both planted us in our Corinth and likewise taught us ; in like manner also after having taught together in Italy they suffered martyrdom about the same time' [not necessarily, of course, at the same hour, or on the same day, the same month, or even the same year] (TO.VTO. (tal tr^teis Sta. TTJS TOCTOVTTJS i-ouflecri as TTJV airb TTeTpou xai llauAou (fivreiav ytvrjSeicrai Vw^aiiav re /cal Koptf- Oiuiv trvi SKepdcraTf. (tal yap aju.<?><" (tal el? rr)t rfftfT^O-v Kopn dov$UTfUCntl TeS Tfiia? 6/UOt bJ? eOLOOL^O.1 . OjUOUOS 6e (fal 61? T~I]V I raAiai 6/iotre 6i<5aai Tes e^iapTVprj<rai> Kara rov avrov (taipoi-). Here the 'planting' or founding of the churches, alike of Rome and of Corinth, is clearly recognised to have been the work of the apostles Peter and Paul. It is of no avail to say with Sanday and Headlam (Comm. p. 29) that the 'planting' referred to (4>vTfvav [phyteuein]; cp 1 Cor. 3:6+, 9:7) is not to be taken 'in the sense of first foundation'. We are not responsible for what Dionysius says ; but we are under obligation to understand it in the sense in which he meant it.

The same remark holds good with reference to Irenaeus when he speaks of the church at Rome as having been 'founded and constituted by the two very glorious apostles Peter and Paul' ( a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paulo Romae fundata et constituta, 3:3:1). These two, subsequently spoken of as 'the blessed apostles', the same authority (about 180 A.D.) goes on to state, after having founded and built up the church, handed over the government to Linus (0ejueAiw<rai/Te? our (cat otKoSofXTJcrarTes ot /uiaKaptoi aTrooToAot Tt]V fKK\Y)o~ia.v AtVa> Tf]V Trjs f-n-KTKOTrfj ; \fiTovpyiaiV ei exei picrai , 3:3:2 ; Eus. HE 5:6:1). In Eus. HE 5:8:2 he tells us that Matthew wrote a gospel for the Hebrews in their own tongue 'whilst Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding the church' (TOU TTeVpou (cal TOU ITauAou eu Pii/ar) evayyeAicJbiu.eVtoi (tat Oefie-

#### 2. Not trustworthy.

These clear testimonies, however, to the founding of the church of Rome by Peter and Paul - however unhesitatingly they may have been accepted and built upon in later times - are one and all quite unworthy of credence. Not only are they relatively recent and obviously framed in accordance with a settled policy of glorifying the unity of the church as having been manifest even in its oldest communities ; what is more to the point, they are at variance with older representations, whether we receive these with absolute confidence or not, of the course of events connected with the founding of a Christian community in Rome.

'Ignatius', in his epistle to the Romans (4:3), written about the middle of the second century (see OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 28-29), indeed mentions 'Peter and Paul' as known and influential teachers of the church he is addressing, but says nothing as to their having founded it. The church of Rome itself speaks by the mouth of 'Clement' in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, dating from about the year 140 A.D. (see OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 23-26), of Peter and Paul as known witnesses to the truth (1 Clem. 5:3-7), but not as founders of the church. Acts is not aware of any labours of Peter and Paul carried out in common at Rome. From 28:17-28 it might seem to be a possible inference that Paul was the first to speak about Christianity to the leading Jews there ; but of Peter there is no word in this connection. Just as little is Peter mentioned in the canonical epistle to the Romans, even in conjunction with 'Paul' when this apostle is speaking of his desire to become acquainted with the Christians of the metropolis, whose faith is everywhere spoken of, and whom he hopes ere long to be able to meet (1:3-15, 15:22-24, 15:28-29, 16:19). Indeed, the arrangements between Paul on the one hand, and James, Cephas, and John on the other, according to Gal. 2:9, 'we to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision' (^/ueis eis ra eOn;, avrol e eis Tt\v wepirn/jirjf), do not lead us to expect to find in epistles of Paul any word of co-operation between Peter and Paul in the founding of individual churches. What is related as to this at a later date with regard to Rome cannot hold good in presence of the assurance given us by the Epistle to the Romans, whether by Paul himself or by an anonymous author using his name, that at Rome there was a considerable Christian community before Paul could possibly have been able to speak a single word there.

Matters do not stand much better with the belief - held absolutely for many centuries, called in question at the Reformation, and again at a later period maintained by many Protestants also - according to which the church of Rome was founded by Peter alone. This tradition also deserves no credence, whether in the form which represents Peter as having been bishop of Rome for twenty-five years after the founding of the church, or in the simpler form which merely conjectures that the apostle may have contributed something to the formation and extension of the church, or at least in later years may have visited it for a shorter or longer period. The founding of the church by Peter is ex cluded by the silence of Ignatius and Clement on the subject, and still more by the evidence of Acts, Gala- tians, and Romans. Not only do they say nothing positive to this effect ; they make it perfectly clear that from the point of view of their respective authors such a thing is not to be thought of. Acts closes its account of Peter in 12:17 with the words, 'and he departed, and went to another place' (/ecu O-eXQ&v eTropevOi) els irepov rliwov), and in the rest of the book Peter's name is only once again mentioned, and in a different connection (15:6-20), where he is represented as again in Jerusalem. In view of this passage 12:17 cannot be understood as referring to a journey to Rome for any lengthened period, not to speak of a period of five and twenty years. Neither, however, can we understand a visit to Rome of shorter duration, such as Harnack (ACL 2:1 [1897], 2:240-244, 2:704-710) still, with many, regards as probable, not even with the aid of the assumption that the contents of Acts 15 were taken from another source than that from which 'Luke' derived his other statements regarding Peter in Acts 1-12. The words quoted do not 'of course' say that we are to think of a mere visit whether to Rome or to any other place. They are quite clearly intended merely to indicate that the author does not propose to follow the fortunes of Peter further : 'and going his way, he journeyed to another place'. To understand Rome as intended here becomes possible only after one has learned otherwhere, rightly or wrongly, to speak of a sojourn of the apostle in the metropolis. Acts says nothing of this, and plainly presupposes rather the exact opposite, since chap. 15 alluded to Peter as again in Jerusalem, and 28:17-28, speaking of Paul's meeting with Jews at Rome, leaves no room for the supposition that Peter had preceded him there as a preacher of Christianity. Galatians knows no residence of Peter other than Antioch (2:11-21) - apart from Jerusalem where, according to 1:18, 2:1-10, he seems to have his home, an agreement that he is to address himself 'to the circumcision' being expressly mentioned. Romans knows of Chris tians in Rome; refers to their conversion from Judaism and heathendom, their fidelity to the Pauline type of doctrine once received (6:17), and the spiritual bond subsisting between them, or many of them, and Paul; but has not a word to say about any connection, whether of long or short duration, between them and the apostle Peter, and does not even so much as mention his name. The writer, whoever he may have been, it has been rightly remarked, has no acquaintance with any tradition which represented Peter as having been the founder of the Roman Church. His declaration made in 15:20-21 that he, 'Paul', would not build upon another man's foundation, however inconsistent with the desire expressed in 1:8-15 and 15:22-24, 15:29, wholly excludes it. Especially so as soon as by the word 'another' we understand, as is usually the case, an apostle - in this instance Peter.

It is, in fact, improbable that Peter ever set foot in Rome. The later traditions regarding this, including those handed down by Eusebius, have no claim to our acceptance, as has often been convincingly shown by many scholars (and recently by C. Clemen, Preuss. Jahrb., 1901, pp. 404-417, and C. Erbes, Ztschr. f. Kirchengesch., 1901, pp. 1-47, 161-231). They possess no higher value than those relating to Thomas's preaching to the Parthians, Andrew's to the Scythians, John's in Asia Minor. When Eusebius, immediately afterwards (3:3:2, cp 2:25:5), gives expression to the conjecture that Peter preached to the Jews of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia, before his crucifixion (head downwards) at Rome, he attributes to him, obviously with his eye on 1 Pet. 1:1, a career which he himself could not possibly reconcile with the details that he gives elsewhere. According to 3:36:2, Peter was for some time bishop of Antioch before Ignatius; according to 2:25:8 he was, along with Paul, founder of the churches of Corinth and Rome ; according to 2:146, the powerful opponent of Simon Magus at Rome in the reign of Claudius (41-54 A.D.) ; according to 6:25:8, the rock upon which the church of Christ is built, and the author of two epistles.

A reference to 1 Pet. 1:1, though often made in conjunction with 5:13, is of no avail to support the view that Peter at some time or other had indeed made a stay, longer or shorter, in Rome. There need, indeed, be no hesitation, not even in presence of the objections of Erbes, 1 to see in 'she that is in Babylon, elect together with [you]' (TI Iv BafivXuvi <rvvK\eKr^, 1 Pet. 5:13) an allusion to the church in Rome. In 1 Pet., however, it is not Peter himself who is speaking, but an unknown author writing in the first half of the second century, 130-140 A.D. (OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 2O ; PETER, EPISTLES OF, 5+; CHRISTIAN, 8). He is the exponent of a tradition, not met with elsewhere, regarding Peter as apostle in a portion of the countries of Asia Minor where Paul also had laboured, and at the same time of the other widely spread tradition that Peter had his home in Rome. Acts, Galatians, and Romans, so far as we can see, are not yet acquainted with this latest tradition. Even 1 Clem., written professedly by the church of Rome, and probably, in point of fact, originating there, says nothing of a sojourn of Peter in Rome. The writer assuredly would not have passed it over in silence when speaking of Peter's glorious past in chap. 5, or treating of the life-work of the 'apostles' in chaps. 42 and 44, if he had known anything of it. Hermas and Justin, both of them witnesses belonging to the Roman circle, are similarly silent as to aught that Peter may be supposed to have done, said, or endured there.

There are, then, as regards Peter's going to Rome, and as regards his journeyings as a whole, traditions which, in part, are mutually exclusive and in no case admit of being combined together into one consistent whole. The older ones do not imply the supposed fact of the church of Rome having been founded by Peter; they have no knowledge of it, or even bear witness against it by making statements which cannot be harmonised with it. Acts, Galatians, Romans,1i Clem., undoubtedly come chiefly into consideration here. On the same side there fall to be grouped other NT testimonies to the martyrdom of Peter, and, more precisely, his crucifixion, drawn from very old, if not the oldest, traditions relating to the careers of the apostles, though without mention of the place where this violent death occurred. See Jn. 21:18-22 (cp 13:36) Mt. 10:5-6, 10:16-18, 10:22-33, 23:34, 23:39, 24:9, 24:14, Mk. 13:9-13, Lk. 24:47, Acts 18. Within the circle of these ancient witnesses we can safely say - apart, if you will, from 1 Pet. 1:1, 5:13 - of all those in the NT, to which also may be added that of the apostolic fathers, that not a single word or even the remotest hint is found in them as to a sojourn, whether of long or of short duration, of Peter in Rome, whilst, in fact, more than one of them, by implicit or explicit declaration, are irreconcilably at variance with any such supposition. Rather does everything plead for the view that Peter never visited Rome, but worked continuously in Palestine - occasionally, perhaps, outside its limits, but never very far off - and that there, it may well have been in Jerusalem, somewhere about 64 A.D. under Sabinus, 1 or, at all events, some years before the destruction of the temple and city in 70 A.D., he died a martyr s death. [See, further, SIMON PETER.]

1 Op cit., below, 16-20. Erbes once more seeks to plead for a sojourn of Peter among the Jews in Babylon, unless perhaps we are to understand Jerusalem.

What remains of the late tradition as to the founding of the church of Rome by Peter and Paul conjointly does not need any careful scrutiny after the name of Peter has been eliminated. We are not in that event shut up to the alternative : if not by Peter and Paul together, then probably by Paul alone. This is nowhere said in any tradition so far as known to us. Tradition seems rather to have followed this course : since it is impossible that Paul can have founded the church along with Peter, his name must not be thought of in connection with the founding at all. Acts and Pauline Epistles, writings frequently read in a large circle, indicated this.

#### 4. In Acts.

Acts knows of no Christian church at Rome at a date prior to a possible foundation by Paul after he had proclaimed the glad tidings to the Jews assembled at his lodging (28:17-31). In 28:15, indeed, we read of the 'brethren' who came from Rome to Appii Forum and the Three Taverns to meet Paul, and it is no doubt usual to regard these as having been Christians, but on no adequate grounds. They are, to judge from vv. 17-28, Jews, just as Roman Jews (v. 21) call their kinsmen in Judaea 'the brethren'. They are amazed at Paul's plans, and declare as distinctly as possible in v. 22 that up to that hour they had heard nothing of 'this sect' - i.e., of the Christians - beyond the mere name. All this is in perfect agreement with the current representation in Acts, according to which Paul in his journeyings invariably first addressed himself to the Jews and thereafter to the Gentiles with a view to proceeding to the setting up of a Christian community, whether composed entirely of converted Gentiles, or partly also of former Jews (cp 13:46 and 13-28 passim). The view that by the 'brethren' of Rome, alluded to in 28:15, as also by those of Puteoli in v. 14, we are to understand Christians, rests solely upon the representation in Romans, according to which Christians are found in Rome long before Paul has ever visited that city.

At the same time it must be remembered that the opposite representation in Acts has no historical authoritativeness, being inextricably bound up with the tendency of that book which has been already referred to. Moreover, in Acts 28:30-31 the founding of a Christian church at Rome by Paul is rather tacitly assumed than asserted in so many words. It is possible that in the 'Acts of Paul' (which were worked over by the writer of our canonical Acts, and also made use of in the composition of the Pauline Epistles, and which themselves in turn had their origin in a redaction and expansion of the recognised We-source) the original journey record (PAUL, 37 ; OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 9) may have given a somewhat different account of the conditions which Paul found at Rome and elsewhere in Italy. It may be that, according to that representation, there were already in more than one place at Rome Christians, 'brethren' in another and higher sense than that of mere kinship, and that their figurative designation is adopted by Acts so that the 'brethren' in Puteoli and Rome, according to Acts 28:14-15 to be understood as Jews who were friendly disposed towards Paul, were at the same time the original Christians of these places.

1 So Erbes, 212, conjectures, relying upon Jos. Ant. 20:9:5.

#### 5. In Romans.

However that may be, Acts nowhere contains any express statement as to the founding of a Christian church at Rome by Paul ; and as little does the epistle to the Romans. What Romans implies is, clearly, rather this - that the church had already been long in existence when Paul was cherishing the hope that he might have an opportunity of personally visiting it. This view is wont to be accepted on all hands as just : by the majority, because they hold it to come from the apostle Paul ; by others, the friends of advanced criticism, because, however fully convinced of the pseudepigraphical character of the epistle (see ROMANS), they have no reason for doubting it.

#### 6. Romans versus Acts.

These have this advantage over the others that they are not, like them, sorely perplexed by Acts which betrays no acquaintance with the epistle held to have been addressed to the church of Rome by Paul at least two years before he himself undertook the journey thither only to become aware on his arrival in the metropolis that noone therehad ever heard anything about him or even about Christianity at all otherwise than by report merely. They set down the divergent representations in 'Luke' and 'Paul' simply to the account of the separate writers, and as regards a supposed founding of the church at Rome, can only say that according to 'Luke' it was perhaps the work of Paul, but according to 'Paul', certainly not. According to Luke, perhaps it was, since we must interpret in accordance with the general tendency of his 'historical' work ; according to 'Paul', because everyone thought so in those days nor yet had any one any knowledge of a founding of the church in Rome by Peter and Paul, or by Peter alone.

#### 7. Other epistles.

In other Pauline epistles also there is no trace of acquaintance with any tradition which sought to represent that founding as having been brought about by Paul. In Romans there is no hint, of the kind we meet with in 1 Cor. 4:14, 2 Cor. 6:13, 12:14, Gal. 4:19, that 'Paul' can regard those whom he addresses as his 'children'. There is no suggestion of such a relation of Paul to Rome even in Philippians, Philemon, or 1 Clem. 5:5-7, where there was such ample opportunty to call to mind the founding of the Roman Church by Paul had the writer been minded to refer to it. The Pauline literature says nothing at all about it, nor yet do the kindred writings, I Peter, 1 Clement, Hermas, Ignatius. Rather must we say that in all of them the undisputed and indisputable presupposition is that Rome was won for the gospel without the intervention of Paul, either by his epistles or by his later personal intercourse.

### 8. Founders unknown Jews.

Whom then are we to name as founder of the Roman church? 'Not any of the apostles', as long ago Ambrosiaster in the so-called commentary of Ambrosius in the fourth century rightly answers (cp Sanday and Headlam, pp. 25, 101). We could almost venture to guess : one or more of those who probably at a quite early date, spread the glad tidings of salvation from Jerusalem westward. There was abundant opportunity in the constant intercourse between Rome and the east, even before the middle of the first century, for travellers from Palestine to return, or come for the first time, to the banks of the Tiber and there to discourse, as they had done in the various other ports and cities they touched on their route, of the 'things concerning Jesus' (TO. irepl TOV l-rjcrov ; Acts 18:25, 28:23, 28:31), 'the kingdom of God' (17 /3a<nAeia TOV Otov ; Acts 14:22, 19:8, 20:25, 28:23, 28:31), 'the preaching of the gospel' (rb ei tryyf\i^ff&ai ; Acts 13:32, 14:7, 14:15, 14:21, 15:35, 16:10). It is not necessary to have recourse to the hardly historical account of the first appearance of the apostles at Jerusalem in Acts 2, where, as we read in vv. 10-11, Romans, Jews as well as proselytes, were sojourning (ot ^TTLSrl/ULOVVTfS Pdl/iCUOl, loi ^CUCH T KO.I TTpOCTr)\VTOl). Such Jews living in Rome, as well as Gentiles who had attached themselves to them and professed their religion, may well have visited Jerusalem on other occasions and become messengers, possibly very capable ones, of what they had seen and heard there to their brethren in the metropolis.

### 10. Age.

On this Jewish soil the earliest Roman Christianity, we may safely affirm, had already come into being before the middle of the first century. The oldest distinct trace of its beginnings is found in Suetonius (Claud. 25), where he says of the emperor Claudius that he expelled the Jews from Rome on account of their persistent turbulence under the instigation of Chrestus [sic] ( Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit ; cp CHRISTIAN, 6 iii. ). The banishment of the Jews (Acts 18:2 and Dio Cassius 60:6), although probably in the event not judged expedient or perhaps even possible, and in any case not carried out on any large scale, had its occasion in troubles and disturbances which had arisen among the Jews 'impulsore Chresto' - i.e., at the instance or with the help of Chrestus. This Chrestus was, to judge by the manner of speech of those days, no other than (Jesus) Christ ; his person and work, the views and expectations connected with him, and his cause were what led Claudius to seek to remove the Jews who had thus become troublesome. Now, though the exact year in which this resolution was come to by the emperor is uncertain, if we remember that at the beginning of his reign (41-54 A.D.) he was, according to Josephus (Ant. 19:5:2-3), favourably inclined to the Jews, we are led to think of a somewhat later date - let us say with Schurer (32-33) and others, the year 49 A.D. In that case the movement we are supposing, and its procuring cause, the first systematic preaching of Christianity in Rome, can have begun some months or years previously. We must leave open the question as to whether at a still earlier date some converts, in the course of pilgrimages to Jerusalem or through the agency of third parties in their adopted country, may not have been won for the new confession and the expectations connected with it. Rome had already for a long time been a favourite and much frequented harbour for new ideas in the sphere of religion.

#### 11. Theory of Acts and Rom.

With the date thus arrived at for the founding of the Christian church in Rome it agrees tolerably well that a writer many years later, in Acts 28:17-28, could still speak as if the new sect were known only by name in the world capital when Paul first proclaimed the tidings of salvation to the Jews there, and that another writer - the author of Romans - did not hesitate to assume throughout his work that at that very time there had already been for a long time in Rome believers belonging to various schools of Christian thought and practice. When these books were written the days of the first founding of a church in Rome were already so far removed that in different circles divergent representations were given regarding it, though there was some danger of misrepresentation. 'Luke' is wrong because he does not take account of the existence of any Christian church at Rome before the apostle Paul had made his voice heard there. The Pauline writer, on the other hand, represents the apostle of the Gentiles as knowing that before his arrival among them the faith of the Roman Christians was already 'proclaimed throughout the whole world' (Rom. 1:8), and in 6:17 it is the Pauline form of doctrine whereunto they have been delivered. Both the one view and the other may well be questioned as strict history. Both writers make it manifest that they no longer know the true position of matters so far as details are concerned. At the same time they confirm, each in his own way, the correctness of the date we have arrived at ; at the beginning of the second century, the founding of the church at Rome belonged to a considerably remote past and at that distance of time could, speaking broadly, be connected with a delineation of the period when Paul was setting out for, or had arrived at, the metropolis of the empire.

#### 12. Further data.

The nearer determination of the date is to be sought in such data as

• (1) the tradition regarding Paul's plans with reference to a journey to Spain, by way of Rome where a Christian church no longer needed to be founded (Rom. 15:28-29, cp 1 Clem. 5:5-7);
• (2) the tradition of Paul's death at Rome, whether, as the ordinary reckoning has it, in 64, as Erbes thinks, on 23rd Feb. 63, or as yet others judge, at some date that cannot be more exactly determined, shortly before or in connection with the persecution of the Christians in the summer of 64;
• (3) all that relates to the fact of the persecution of the Christians at Rome by Nero;
• (4) the appearance of the 'Church of Rome' as the writer of Clement's first epistle to the Corinthians;
• (5) the activity of Marcion and Valentinus among the Christians at Rome;
• (6) all that tradition tells us of the establishment of a bishop s see at Rome by the apostles Peter and Paul ;

A very large series of testimonies continuously assuring us, each in its own way, that the founding of a Christian church at Rome goes back to the middle of the first century of our era.

### 13. Character of church.

The character of this church was, to begin with, no other than was to be expected from its origin within the sphere of 'Jews and proselytes' (4) Ambrosiaster in speaking of Jews alone as fathers of the Christian community at Rome has here again truly said that those who believed confessed Christ and held fast by the law ( 'ex quibus [Judaeis] hi qui crecliderant, tradiderunt Romanis ut Christum profitentes legem servarent' ). In this there is no 'exaggeration' as Sanday and Headlam (p. 25, n. 3) have thought. They indeed could hardly have thought otherwise as long as they were dominated by belief in the genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans. Whoever deems himself bound to maintain that belief must inevitably assume that already, before Romans was written by Paul - on the ordinary reckoning, that is to say, before 59 A.D. - there were to be met with in Rome two divergent types of Christian faith and profession, the Jewish-Christian and the Pauline. Such an one cannot avoid facing the question : What was the church of Rome at that time? Jewish-Christian? Pauline? Mixed? Yet all the while he is well aware - or the discovery is ever anew forced upon him - that no satisfactory answer to the question can be given. Some texts speak very clearly for the view that the church in question consisted of former gentiles, whilst others say the exact opposite - that it was composed of former Jews (see ROMANS, 8 ; van Manen, Paulus, 2:23-25, 16:6-7). Yet we cannot hold with Sanday-Headlam (p. 26) and others the theory that it was a 'mixed' church. To such a theory can be applied to the full what these scholars remark in another connection : 'there is no hint of such a state of things', which moreover would compel us, contrary to the manifest intention of the writer, to think of 'two distinct churches in Rome, one Jewish-Christian, the other Gentile-Christian, and that St. Paul wrote only to the latter'.

Any one who, on the other hand, has been able to free himself from the axiom of the genuineness and has satisfied himself of the pseudepigraphical character of this writing of a later time (see ROMANS) no longer feels his hands tied by the various impossible attempts that have been made to answer the questions proposed. He is no longer perplexed by that other troublesome question : How are we to explain the fact that nowhere in history has there remained any trace of the existence of an important Pauline community in Rome, after the apostle s epistle had been sent thither ? He takes no notice of all ideas of this sort, the pictures suggested in the epistle of the outward appearance and inward semblance of the Christian church in Rome in the days before Paul could possibly have preached there - as being not renderings of historical actuality but pictures of a past that never had been real, attempts to repre sent the old-Christian period after many decades had passed. Such a student holds fast by the seemingly insignificant phrase, which yet tells us so much, of the instigating 'Chrestus' by whom the Jews in Rome, according to Suetonius, in the days of Claudius (ob. 49 A. D. ) were troubled ; and holds by the pretty generally accepted conception as to a Christian Church at Rome which had arisen out of the faith and life, the active exertions, of 'Jews and proselytes' who had been converted to Christ ; by what Ambrosiaster has said, with equal sobriety and justice - that Jews living in Rome in the days of the apostles had taught their brethren to confess Christ and to hold fast by the law.

#### 14. Jewish-Christian.

In other words, the church in Rome was originally Jewish-Christian, and probably long remained so. Gradually more liberal ideas crept in, thanks perhaps to the influence of more advanced preachers from abroad who had wholly or partially outgrown their Judaism, but thanks still more to the ease with which in every sphere of thought new ideas made way in Rome. Whether Paul may have had any active share in this work we are not now in a position to say. Acts leaves us in doubt. Romans testifies to good intentions but not to any work actually clone. The 'epistle', in spite of the seeming abundance of the light it sheds on the events of the years immediately preceding 59 A.D. in Rome, really draws over them all an almost impenetrable veil. It gives surprising glimpses into the history of the development of the church in the direction of greater freedom, the emancipation of Christianity from the dominion of the law, but all from a remote distance in space, probably from the East - Antioch or somewhere else in Syria, it may be, or perchance Asia Minor - at all events, a long way off and in a distinctly later time.

#### 15. Struggle of Paulinism.

In reality, in the more trustworthy tradition there is no trace of all this, but on the contrary, unmistakable proof that Paulinism at Rome though

• (i.) it struggled for a time for the victory in the days of Marcion (ob. 140 A. D. ).
• (ii. ) never really took permanent root there, and never was other than an exotic.

i. That Paulinism flourished in some degree at Rome is very certain, as we may safely infer :

• (a) from the way in which it is throughout presupposed in Romans (written probably about 120 A. D. ; see ROMANS, 23) that, before his first visit to the capital, Paul already had there a large circle of friends and followers, of whom a whole series is mentioned by name in 16:3-15, and who already for a long time had been instructed in his distinctive type of doctrine (6:17);
• (b) from the support as well as the opposition, which Marcion met with in Rome, in various capacities, and not least of all as advocate of his 'Apostle', the Paul of the epistles ;
• (c) from the friendly relation between Peter and Paul presupposed in '1 Peter', probably written at Rome, in evidence of which relation we point not only to the Pauline form of the writing and to the mention, at the end, of Silvanus and of Mark (cp 2 Peter 3:15-16), but also and chiefly to the strongly Pauline character of the contents ;
• (d) from the liberal spirit of the gospel according to Mark, probably also written at Rome, along with which perhaps that according to Luke may also be named ;
• (e) from the honour with which 'Clement' as spokesman of the church at Rome writes 'to the Corinthians' concerning Paul (1 Clem. 5:5-7, 47:1), and more than once declares that he is influenced by the reading of his 'epistles' ;
• (f) from the mention of Paul along with Peter as a teacher of authority by 'Ignatius' in his epistle to the Romans ( 'I do not command you as Peter and Paul did', 43) ;
• (g) from the wide currency of the later tradition of the founding of the Christian church at Rome by 'Peter and Paul'.

ii. Paulinism was, however, only partially successful, as is no less clearly evident :

• (a) from the way in which in Romans Paul now admonishes the Jews (chaps. 1-8, passim, and especially 2:17-29) and now shows them the greatest deference (chaps. 9-11 passim, especially 3:1-2, 9:1-5, 10:1) ;
• (b) from the opposition met with by Marcion in Rome which ended in his expulsion from the new religious community ;
• (c) from the position of the name of Paul in the younger tradition - already in 'Clement' and 'Ignatius' - after that of Peter;
• (d) from the spirit of works brought out at Rome and extensively read there, the most outstanding of which is the so-called first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. The spirit there breathed, notwith standing the reverence expressed for 'Paul' and the deference occasionally paid to the principles inaugurated by him, is much more of a Jewish-Christian character than one that testifies to warm sympathy with the gospel of freedom ; rather one that is slowly gravitating toward the left than one that is averse to the right in principle ; a conciliatory and advancing spirit, if you will, yet rather in many respects showing lingering attachment to the old than still standing with both feet upon the basis of the law, firmly rooted in Judaism, filled with the rich contents of the Old Testament ; in a word, a spirit that in its inmost nature is becoming Catholic.

### 17. Constitution of Jewish community.

How this Christian community at Rome was originally governed and organised can probably be best conjectured, in the absence of all positive information, by calling to mind once more what we know of the spirit of that religious fellowship of the Jews out of which it arose. Like this last it had no political aims, and consequently as yet knew nothing of those who at a later time were to be called rulers and leaders, charged with the care of the outward life of Christians as subjects of the state. The Jewish 'Church', although it can be so called in respect of the religious confession of its adherents, formed no unity placed under the leadership and government of a single council or of one head. It was made up rather of a great number of separate and independent congregations (yvvayuyal [synagogai]), each having its own synagogue, its own council (ytpovffLa [gerousia]), its own rulers ({LpxovTes [archontes]), who also sometimes at least, were partly called 'elders' (ir/OT/Stfrepot [presbyteroi]), and, whether for life (5ii fiiov [dia biou]) or for a limited period, were chosen at the beginning of the Jewish civil year (in September). They were charged with the general leadership of the community, sometimes also with the task associated with the special office of chief of the synagogue (dpx 1 1 < *"y ct 7 os [archisynagogos]). The language employed was Greek, as indeed the whole constitution with rulers (apxovrfs [archontes]) and councils (yepovffl<u [gerousiai]), so far as form was concerned, seems to have been borrowed from the civil organisation usual in Greek cities (see Schurer, Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom, 1879, and GJV (3) 3,pp. 44-51 [1898]).

### 18. Of Christian Church.

The Christian Church also, we may safely take for granted, very soon after its members had been excommunicated, or had voluntarily withdrawn from the Jewish synagogues in Rome, had their own centres, with a government proper to themselves (modelled mainly, so far as form was concerned, on that which they had left at the call of religious principle and duty), their own places of meeting (ywayuyai [synagogai]), their own rulers (&pXOVTe<> [archontes]), who are often called elders (irpecrfivTfpoi. [presbyteroi]). This was what happened elsewhere throughout the cities of the Dispersion. Why not also in Rome ? Acts calls the rulers 'elders' (wpecrfivrepoi [presbyteroi]) in 11:30, 14:23, 20:17, whenever Jerusalem is spoken of, where the apostles are regarded as having lived and laboured, we read of 'apostles and elders' (14:2, 15:4, 15:6, 15:23, 16:4), just as the same writer elsewhere when referring to the rulers (dpxovres [archontes]) of the Jews speaks of their 'elders' (2:17, 4:5, 4:8, 4:23, 6:12, 23:14, 24:1, 25:15). For the rest, in Acts we find no allusion to any government of Christian com munities, just as, in fact, of the community that arose after the arrival of Paul in Rome nothing more is said than that they met in Paul s own house (28:30-31). In Romans there is no evidence as to the terms employed in this connection by the Christians at Rome, except in a single passage where allusion is made to 'him that ruleth' (6 Trpoio-rd/xecos [o proistamenos]: 128).

1 Clem. , the 'epistle' of the 'church of God' at Rome to that of Corinth, has more to say. The church (r) fKK\rjffia [e ekklesia]) comes before us as a unity embracing all believers within the boundaries of a definite locality ; so in the opening words and also in 44:3, 47:6 (cp 2 Clem. 2:1, 14:1, 14:2, 14:41). We are not precluded from thinking that, as in the case of the Jews, this unity was made up of various circles or congregations within the larger whole which comprehended the whole body of the faithful. The supposition finds support when we consider the manner in which the occurrence of divergent ideas and practices with regard to the choice of officials is spoken of. Some consider themselves free in their choice ; but others, including the writer, hold themselves bound to tradition and obliged to adhere to the ancient holders of spiritual offices as long as they have not disqualified themselves by misconduct (cp 13 33 216 42 44 592). True, this applies, so far as form is concerned, in the first instance and especially, only to the Corinthians who are being addressed, but yet also to the Romans who are speaking of themselves in the plural number (cp 7:1 ; see OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 24). The most obvious explanation is to be found in the supposition that the divergent views and practices referred to were found in the different circles or congregations (4KK\r)fflai [ekklesiai]) within the bounds of the one church - 77 tKK\r)<rla [e ekklesia] - whether that of Rome or that of Corinth. However that may be, 'the church' had its rulers or leaders ( rjyoi>fj.evoi [egoumenoi]; 1:3) just as had the Jews (32:2), the Egyptians (51:5), and others (37:3, 55:1, 60:1). They are usually called 'elders' (irpffffitirepoi. [presbyteroi]; 1:3, 1:33, 21:6, 44:5, 47:6, 54:2, 57:1, cp 2 Clem. 17:3, 17:5), but in one instance, though in no different sense, 'overseers' (eiriffKotroi [episkopoi]) and 'deacons' (diaKOvoi [diakonoi, 42:4-5, cp 44:1, 50:3), charged with the sacred service (XeiToi />7ia [leitourgia], 41:1, 44:2-3, 44:6). They were 'ministering' (XeiTovpyovvres [leitourgountes]; 463) just as in their manner were the Jews (32:2, 40), Enoch (9:2), Aaron (43:4), the angels of God (34:5-6). In this service or ministry were included, or at least came under their superintendence,

• (1) the reading of scripture (17 ypafiri or ai if pal ypa<pai) - the OT as we now know it and whatever other writings were at that time reckoned as belonging to it ; also Christian writings such as Paul's 'Epistle to the Corinthians' and other treatises, including 1 and 2 Clem, (cp 2 Clem. 19:1, 15:1, 17:5, 1 Clem. 47:1, 63:2, 7:1, OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 2-4; Herm. Vis. 2:1:3, 2:4:1, Eus. HE 2:25:8, 3:38:5)
• (2) exhortation (cp 1 Clem, passim) and
• (3) prayer (1 Clem. 59:3-61, 2 Clem. 22).

All of these, as with the Jews, at least down to near the end of the second century, were performed in Greek.

Of a monarchical government of the Church there is as yet no trace in 1 and 2 Clem. Neither is there any in the Shepherd of Hermas which, like the Epistles of Clement, knows only of elders ( Vis. 2:4:2-3, 3:1:8) and overseers, along with 'teachers' and 'deacons' (Vis. 3:5:1, Sim. 9:27:2). The oldest traces of monarchical church government in Rome are met with in the seven epistles of 'Ignatius' which were probably written there about the middle of the second century, and in the earliest lists of Roman bishops - little trustworthy though these are in their substance, and put together in the interests of the recognition of the episcopate, which was then coming into being, or had recently come to be important. They do not go farther back than to Anicetus, and were probably drawn up under his successor Soter, about 170 A.D. (see Harnack, ACL ii. 1, 1897, pp. 70-231, esp. pp. 144-202. See, further, MINISTRY).

### 19. Importance of Rome.

If the question be asked, finally, as to the influence and importance of the Christian church at Rome, it was small and certainly for the first few decades not to be compared with that of the church at Jerusalem nor yet with that of other churches of Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor. It was only gradually in the course of the second century that a change in this respect came about, under the influence of great historical events such as the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. , the rebuilding of that city as Aelia Capitolina under Hadrian (see JERUSALEM, 33-34), and tne continual process by which the West manifested its preponderance over the East. In all this there made itself felt the favourable situation of the Christian Church at Rome in the centre of Graeco-Roman civilisation ; the inborn inclination, and the corresponding aptitude, of what had been the Gentile element in the new church, to lead and soon to dominate believers who had their homes elsewhere, as well as unbelievers ; and last, certainly not least, whatever that church was able to contribute from its own resources towards its internal growth and its external prestige. In this connection we may particularly specify : the accession not merely of slaves and people of the lower orders but also of rich and often influential persons, sometimes even from the immediate entourage of the emperor ; the courage shown by martyrs there as elsewhere ; the zeal of outstanding personalities such as Valentinus and Marcion ; the activity of efficient men such as 'Clement' and 'Ignatius' in labouring for the establishment of the Catholic Church ; the labour expended on various sides to advance far and near the cause of knowledge, of Christian practice, of edification, of consolation.

### 20. Christian literature.

Marcion laid the foundations of a recognition of a written norm of truth, of belief (KCLVUV TT)S d\r)0fias, 9rt Phristian T ^ reus), one gospel and ten Pauline Epistles ( EteryAtov K al o ATTOOTOAOS [TO ATrooToAi/coi J), which the church as it grew Catholic soon spread far and wide and accepted - along with the older tradition - as the touchstone of truth. Into this (ecclesiastical) canon Rome, according to the list discovered and published in modern times by Muratori, introduced a larger collection of Old-Christian writings differing but slightly in extent from the NT as that was finally fixed by well-nigh the whole of Christendom. Marcion also wrote an orthodoxly conceived 'Epistle' and 'Antitheses' or 'Separation of Law and Gospel' (Antitheses or Separatio legis et evangelii) ; Valentinus was the author of 'Epistles', 'Homilies', and 'Psalms'. Some unknown writer prepared the Gospel according to Mark ; 'Clement', two 'epistles' to the Corinthians, of which the first is a 'Treatise concerning Peace and Harmony' ((vrevi-ts TTfpl eiprivTjs Kal 6/uocoias), conceived, according to its own description of itself (63:2), in the interests of peace in the churches, and especially in the matter of the election of elders, and the second is an 'Exhortation concerning continence' (2v/u/3oi>X/a irepl ^yKparfias, 15:1). Hermas wrote his Shepherd to stir up all to repentance; 'Ignatius' composed his 'Epistles' upon love for the promotion of martyrdom and on behalf of right views in doctrine and in life. He and others contributed largely to the upbuilding of their own as well as other churches, where their epistles were diligently read. Thus the Roman leaders exercised influence in ever-widening circles, and opened up the way, often quite unconsciously, for the spiritual predominance of their fellow-believers abroad. From the middle of the second century another element that had no small influence also was the effort after a one-man government of the church, first on the part of Rome alone, but afterwards also on that of others who afterwards associated themselves with it in this. Polycarp of Smyrna, seeking for comfort at the hands of Anicetus of Rome in the matter of orthodox observance of Easter, still knows how to maintain his freedom of thought and action in another direction than that prescribed to him. But one of his successors in the Asia Minor controversy of the Quartodecimans, Polycrates of Ephesus, was excommunicated by Victor of Rome and cut off from the fellowship of the faithful (see Baur, Das Christenthum u. d. Christl. Kirche der drei Ersten Jahrb. 1853, pp. 141-157). In this manner the preponderance and authoritativeness, and ultimately the supremacy, of the church of Rome had already come to be recognised in the East before the end of the second century.

### 21. Bibliography.

For the extensive literature dealing with our subject reference may be made, amongst others, to such studies on the supposed sojourn of Peter and Paul in Rome as those of A. Harnack, ACL ii. 1 1897, pp. 240-244, 703-710 ; C. Clemen, 1st Petrus in Rom gewesen? in Preuss. Jahrb. 1901, pp. 404-417; C. Erbes, Petrus nicht in Rom sondern in Jerusalem gestorben in Brieger s Ztschr.f. Kirchen-gesch. IQOI, pp. 1-47 161-231 ; on the Jews in Rome in Sanday and Headlam, The Ep. to the Romans, 1895, xviii-xxv ; Berliner, Gesch. der Juden in Rom, 1893 ; E. Schiirer, Die Genieincteverfassung der Jtiden in Rom, 1879 andGy/ ( 3 ), iii. 1898, pp. 28-36 44-56. Also to the comment aries on Romans such as those of Sanday -Headlam, 1895, xviii-xliv ; R. A. Lipsius in HC(~\, 1892, pp. 70-78; Meyer- WeissW, 1890, pp. 16-22: to theNTintroductionssuchasthoseof S. Davidson! 3 ), 1804, 1105-113; H. J. Holtzmannl 3 ), 1892, pp. 232-236; Th. Zahnf 2 !, 1900, pp. 299-308 ; J. M. S. Baljon, 1901, pp. 88-92. See also Romans (Epistle to the) in Ency. Brit.P), 26727-730 [1886], and OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, PAUL, ROMANS, SIMON PETER, in the present work.

W. C. v. M.