ROMANS
159
ROMANS
century would have made St. Paul declare that he had
not founded the Roman community, that previously
he had had no connexions with it, since at a very early
date the same Apostle becomes with St. Peter its co-
founder? How could a man of the second century have
conceived the idea of attributing to St. Paul the inten-
tion of paying merely a passing visit to Rome, when (as
would have been palpable to every reader of Acts, xxviii,
30-31) the Apostle had worked there for two successive
years? The Acts could not have supplied the sugges-
t'ion, since it merely says: "I must sec Rome also"
(xix, 21) . Of Paul's plan of proceeding thence to Spain,
the author of Acts says nothing; in recording the
nocturnal apparition of the Lord to St. Paul, mention
is made only of his giving testimony at Rome (Acts,
xxiii, 11). The arrival at Rome is recorded with the
words: "And so we went to [the wished for] Rome"
(Acts, xxviii, 14). Acts closes with a reference to
Paul's residence and activity in Rome, without even
hinting at anything further. Again, it would have
occurred to a forger to mention Peter also in a forged
Epistle to the Romans, even though it were only in a
greeting or a reference to the foundation of the Church.
Other arguments could be drawn from the concluding
chapters. Whoever studies Romans closely will be
convinced that here the true Paul speaks, and will
acknowledge that "the authenticity of the Epistle to
the Romans can be contested only bj' those who venture
to banish the personality of Paul from the pages of
history" (Jiilicher).
IV. Integrity. — Apart from individual uncertain texts, which occur also in the other Epistles and call for the attention of the textual investigator, the last two chapters have given rise to some doubts among critics. Not only did Marcion omit x\'i, 25-27, but, as Origen-Rufinus express it, "cuncta dissecuit" from xiv, 23. Concerning the interpretation of these words there is indeed no agreement, for while the majority of exegetes see in them the complete rejection of the two concluding chapters, others translate "dissecuit" as "disintegrated", which is more in accordance with the Latin expression Under Chr. Baur's leadership, the Tubingen School has rejected both chapters; others have inclined to the theory of the disintegration work of Marcion.
Against chapter xv no reasonable doubt can be main- tained. Verses 1-13 follow as a natural conclusion from ch. xiv. The general extent of the consideration recommended in ch. xiv is in the highest degree Pauline. Furthermore xv, 7-13 are so clearly connected with the theme of the Epistle that they are on this ground also quite beyond su.spicion. Though Christ is called the "minister of the circumcision" in xv, 8, this is in entire agreement with all that the Gospels say of Him and His mission, and with what St. Paul himself always declares elsewhere. Thus also, according to the Papistic, salvation is offered first to Israel con- formably to Divine Providence (i, 16) ; and the writer of ix, 3-5, could also write xv, 8.
The personal remarks and information (xv, 14- 33) are in entire agreement with the opening of the Epistle, both in thought and tone. His travelling plans and his personal uneasiness concerning his reception in Jerusalem are, as already indicated, sure proofs of the genuineness of the verses. The ob- jection to ch. XV has thus found little acceptance; of it "not a sentence may be referred to a forger" (Jiilicher).
Stronger objections are urged against ch. xvi. In the first 7)lace the concluding doxology is not universally recognized as genuine. The MSS. in- deed afford some grounds for doubt, although only a negligibly small number of witnesses have with Marcion ignored the whole doxology. The old MSS., in other respects regarded as authoritative, insert it after xvi, 24; a small number of MSS. place it at the end of xiv; some have it after both xiv and
xvi. In view of this uncertainty and of some ex-
pressions not found elsewhere in the writings of St.
Paul (e. g., the only wise God, the scriptures of the
prophets), the doxology has been declared a later
addition (H. J. Holtzmann, Jiilicher, and others),
a very unlikely view in the face of the almost un-
exceptional testimony, especially since the thought
is most closely connected with the opening of Romans,
without however betraying any dependence in its
language. The fullness of the expression corre-
sponds completely with the solemnity of the whole
Epistle. The high-spirited temperament of the
author powerfully shows itself on repeated occasions.
The object with which the Apostle writes the Epistle,
and the circumstances under which it is written,
offer a perfect explanation of both attitude and tone.
The addressees, the impending journey to Jerusalem
with its problematic outcome (St. Paul speaks later
of his anxiety in connexion therewith— Acts, xx, 22),
the acceptance of his propaganda at Rome, on which,
according to his own admission, his Apostolic future
so much depended — all these were factors which
must have combined once more at the conclusion of
such an Epistle to issue in these impressively solemn
thoughts. In view of this consideration, the removal
of the doxology would resemble the extraction of the
most precious stone in a jewel-case.
The critical references to xvi, 1-24, of to-day are con- cerned less with their Pauline origin than with their inclusion in Romans. The doubt entertained regard- ing them is of a twofold character. In the first place it has been considered difficult to explain how the Apostle had so many personal friends in Rome (which he had not yet visited), as is indicated by the series of greetings in this chapter; one must suppose a real tide of emi- gration from the Eastern Pauline communities to Rome, and that within the few years which the Apostle had devoted to his missions to the Gentiles. Certain names occasion especial doubt: Epenetua, the "first fruits of Asia", one would not expect to see in Rome; Aquila and Prisca, who according to I Corinthians have assembled about them a household community in Ephesus, are represented as having a little later a similar community in Rome. Further, it is surprising that the Apostle in an Epistle to Rome, should emphasize the services of these friends. But the chief objection is that this last chapter gives the Epistle a new character; it must have been written, not as an introduction, but as a warning to the com- munity. One does not write in so stern and authorita- tive a tone as that displayed in xvi, 17-20, to an unknown community; and the words "I would" (xvi, 19) are not in keeping with the restraint evinced by St. Paul elsewhere in the Epistle. In consequence of these considerations numerous critics have, with David Schulz (1829), separated all or the greater portion of chapter xvi from the Epistle to the Romans (without however denying the Pauline authorship), and declared it an Epistle to the Ephesians^whether a complete epistle or only a portion of such is not determined. Verses 17-20 are not ascribed by some critics to this Epistle to the Ephesians; other critics are more liberal, and refer ch. ix-xi or xii-xiv to the imaginary Epistle.
We agree with the result of criticism in holding as certain that xvi belongs to St. Paul. Not only the language, but also the names render its Pauline origin certain. For the greater part the names are not of those who played any role in the history of primitive Christianity or in legend, so that there was no reason for bringing them into connexion with St. Paul. Certainly the idea could not have occurred to anyone in the second century, not merely to name the unknown Andronicus and Junias as Apostles, but to assign them a prominent position among the Apostles, and to place them on an eminence above St. Paul as having been in Christ before him. These
