MCMXCIX

iv

THE BAMPTON
LECTURES

FOR
1913

v

THE CHURCH IN ROME

IN THE FIRST CENTURY

LECTURE
I

Rom.
1:8: ‘First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your
faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.’

The
subject of these lectures is in one sense a well-worn theme. The
literature bearing upon the history of the Church in Rome during the first
century is enormous, and unfortunately in modem times the prevailing note
has been controversial. It has seemed as if it were impossible even for
those who have tried to write on the beginnings of Roman Christianity in
the impartial spirit of the scientific historian to free themselves from
bias and prejudice. This very fact, however, only proves that this has
been and is a subject of profound and indeed of absorbing interest, and it
is so from whatever point of view we regard it, the political, no less
than the. ecclesiastical and religious. That interest indeed, so far from
diminishing, has been greatly stimulated and increased by the
archaeological researches and discoveries made in Rome and its immediate
neighbourhood during the past half-century. Year by year additions have
been made to our knowledge, and it is now generally admitted that the last
word on many most important and critical questions has not yet been
spoken. Already many assertions once confidently made have had to be
modified or abandoned, opinions put forward with authority are constantly
being revised, and a careful study of avail-able evidence has convinced me
that there are grounds 2for
questioning seriously certain conclusions now generally received, and at
the same time for upholding the historical character of some ancient
traditions too hastily rejected.

The
first point to grasp is the character of the spell exercised over the
minds of men by the very name of Rome during the period of the early
Caesars. Rome in the first century of our era occupied a position of
influence unique in the annals of history. It had become the magnetic
centre of the civilised world, and it was itself the most cosmopolitan of
cities that have ever existed. The Rome of Claudius and of Nero was the
seat of an absolute and centralised Government, whose vast dominion
stretched from the shores of the Atlantic to the borders of Parthia, from
Britain to the Libyan deserts, over diverse lands and many races, all of
them subdued after centuries of conflict and of conquest by the Roman
arms, but now forming a single empire under an administrative system of
unrivalled flexibility and strength, which enforced obedience to law and
the maintenance of peace without any unnecessary infringement of local
liberties or interference with national religious cults. One of the most
remarkable features of this great Empire was the freedom of intercourse
that was enjoyed, and the safety and rapidity with which travelling could
be undertaken. Never until quite modern times has any such ease and
security of communication between place and place been possible. And this
not merely by those admirable military roads which were one of the chief
instruments for the maintenance of the Roman rule and for the binding
together of province with province and of the most distant frontiers with
the capital; the facilities for intercourse by water also were abundant
and were, except during the winter months, freely used. The Roman Empire,
as a glance at the map reveals, was—even at its zenith—essentially a
Mediterranean power. Its dominion consisted mainly of the fringe of
territory encircling that sea. In the midst stood the capital. The
greatest cities of the Empire were ports, and Rome itself, the chief
3among
them, was dependent upon sea-borne traffic for its daily food.[1]

At
the beginning of the Christian era the population of the imperial city has
been estimated at not less than 1,300,000, of which more than one half
were slaves. The entire number of citizens owning private property was
very small—a few thousands only.[2]
Each
of these possessed vast numbers of slaves,[3]
who were trained to perform every kind of work, so that a considerable
portion of the free inhabitants found themselves without occupation or
employment. In the time of Julius Caesar[4]
no
fewer than 320,000 were supported by the state, and though Augustus was
able to reduce this multitude of paupers to 200,000,[5]
the
number afterwards rapidly increased. This huge population was, as has been
already said, one of the most cosmopolitan that has ever been gathered
together to form one community. This was due in the first instance to the
practice of selling prisoners of war, and the inhabitants of captured
cities, as slaves. The institution of slavery therefore implied that in
every wealthy household in Rome there was a great mixture of races, and
the custom of manumission on a large scale was continually admitting
batches of persons of foreign extraction to many privileges of
citizenship. Thus was formed the large and important class of freedmen
(liberti) containing men of culture and ability, who not only
filled posts of 4responsibility
in their former masters’ households but not seldom became rich and rose to
high official positions in the state. Freedmen indeed and the descendants
of freedmen played no small part in the history of the times with which we
are dealing, and Christianity found among them many of its early converts
and most earnest workers. But the freedmen and the slaves by no means
comprised all the foreign population of Rome at this epoch. The
legionaries were recruited in all parts of the empire; the Pretorian camp
contained contingents drawn from distant frontier tribes. Traders,
travellers, adventurers of every kind thronged to Rome—particularly from
the East. So did the preachers and teachers of many philosophies, cults,
and modes of worship, Greek, Egyptian, and Phrygian. The very language of
ordinary everyday life in Rome had become Greek, and the whole atmosphere
of the great city was in no small measure orientalised.[6]

Amongst
this large alien element in the population the Jews formed one of the most
marked and important sections. Their position indeed was at once singular
and exclusive, for they had privileges accorded to none others. The
origin [7]of
the Jewish colony at Rome may be traced back to 63 B.C.,
when Pompeius after the capture of Jerusalem brought back a large number
of prisoners, who were sold as slaves. But the Jew, as a slave, was always
difficult to deal with, through his obstinate adherence to his ancestral
faith 5and
peculiar customs, and so many of these slaves were speedily manumitted[8]
that they were able to form a community apart on the far side of the
Tiber.[9]
Julius Caesar from motives of expediency showed especial favour to the
Jews, and his policy was continued by Augustus and, except for brief
intervals, by his successors. The privileges thus conferred were very
great, and included liberty of worship, freedom from military service and
from certain taxes, the recognition of the Sabbath as a day of rest, the
right of living according to the customs of their forefathers, and full
jurisdiction over their own members.
[10]
Once in the reign of Tiberius[11]
the
worshippers of Jahveh and of Isis fell under the heavy displeasure of the
emperor; some were punished, others expelled from the city, and the
consuls were ordered to enlist 4000 Jews for military service in the
malarious climate of Sardinia, 19 A.D.
The determination of Caligula to set up a statue of himself in the Temple
of Jerusalem aroused a storm of opposition, which would undoubtedly have
brought a fierce persecution upon the Jews but for the assassination of
the tyrant (41 A.D.),
before his 6design
was carried into effect.[12]
Claudius, however, on his accession at once renewed all the old
privileges, and took steps to allay the fanatical passions stirred up by
the action of his half-insane predecessor. From this time forward the Jews
were never compelled to take part in Caesar-worship.[13]
To them alone of all the peoples of the empire was this concession
made.

This
Jewish colony in Rome seems from the descriptions of contemporary writers
to have had the same characteristics as the Jewish colonies in European
cities throughout the Middle Ages, and indeed much as we see them to-day.
A large proportion of these Roman Jews were very poor, living in rags and
squalor, making a precarious livelihood as hawkers, pedlars, and dealers
in second-hand goods. Above these were then, as now, the moneylenders,
larger traders, and shopkeepers, and at the head the wealthy financiers,
and in the days of Tiberius and his successors many members of the
Herodian family made Rome their home and lived on terms of close intimacy
with the Imperial circle.[14]
It
is a curious fact that the Jewish race, while hated and despised by the
people of Rome, should have been endowed with so many immunities by the
Emperors, and above all that its exclusive religion and ceremonial rites
should have possessed such an attraction as undoubtedly they did possess,
and should have drawn so many adherents from all classes.[15]
The truth is that the privileges, as I have said before, were granted from
motives of pure expediency. The Jewish race was numerous, it had
settlements in practically every important city in the empire, and it was
financially indispensable. 7The
number of Jews in Rome in 5 B.C.
has been estimated at 10,000; in Egypt, 1,000,000; in Palestine, 700,000;
in the whole Roman Empire (out of a total population of fifty-four to
sixty millions) four to four and a half millions.

As
4000 adult males were actually sent to Sardinia in 19 A.D.
it may safely be said that a quarter of a century later, allowing for the
natural growth of population, for fresh batches of slaves receiving
manumission, and for immigration from outside, the total Jewish settlement
in Rome would not be less than 30,000 and might reach
50,000.

Everywhere
the Jew however held aloof from his Gentile neighbours, and his absolute
refusal to mingle with them and to share their life could only be met
either by coercion or by favoured treatment. To the wise statesmanship of
the dictator Julius the latter course commended itself, and the permanence
of the policy he adopted is sufficient proof of its prescience. The
attractiveness of Judaism, as a religious cult, is more difficult to
explain. It had neither the mysticism nor the sensuousness of the worship
of Isis or of Cybele. Yet although the Jew was hated and scorned, his
religion became to a surprising degree the mode in Rome, especially among
ladies of the patrician houses. The number of actual proselytes of Gentile
origin was large, and still larger the number of those whom St. Luke in
the Acts styles ‘God-fearers’[16]
(σεβόμενοι τὸν Θεόν),
i.e. people who adopted the Jewish monotheism, attended the
8synagogue[17]
services, and observed the Sabbath and certain portions of the ceremonial
law. These ‘God-fearers,’ in every place where Jewish communities were to
be found, formed a fringe round the Synagogue of bodies of men and women,
who, in this age of religious electicism, without altogether abandoning
their connexion with Paganism, had become semi-Jews.

In
a city such as the Rome we have been describing it is not difficult to see
a seed-plot ready prepared for the planting of a new religion like
Christianity, oriental in its origin, an outgrowth of Judaism, akin in so
many points to the Mystery-Religions of Egypt and Asia Minor then so much
in vogue, and bearing, as it did, in its ethical teaching so striking a
resemblance to the moral code of the Stoics. That the message of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ in some primitive form reached the banks of the
Tiber very early there is, as I shall show later, good reason to believe,
but of the when or how we know nothing directly. The converts at first
would be almost certainly few in number and drawn from the humbler class
of Jews.[18]
The
new sect, if 9it were noticed at all by the
authorities, would be regarded with contemptuous indifference as a variety
of Judaism, and therefore sheltered by the privileges which Judaism, as a
religio licita, enjoyed.[19]
The only possible allusion in the first decade after the Crucifixion to
the existence in Rome of a knowledge of Christian teaching is contained in
a passage of Suetonius’ ‘Life of Caligula,’ in which he tells of the
performance before the Emperor of a play in which a certain
Laureolus, who gives his name to the piece, is crucified upon the
stage. Might there not be here a cruel parody upon the central theme of
Christian preaching? Probably not, though such an exhibition is at any
rate thoroughly illustrative of the spirit of mockery with which the idea
of a crucified Saviour would be received.[20]

There
is evidence, however, in the pages of the same historian, Suetonius, that
almost exactly a decade after the aforesaid production of the
Laureolus Christianity in Rome had already become a force
sufficiently potent to draw down upon it the fanatical antagonism of the
Jews. Tumults and disorders seem to have arisen in the Jewish quarter of
the city in 50 A.D.
of such a threatening character as to force the Government, in spite of
its favourable inclination to the Jews, to take strong action. This
appears to me to be nothing more than a fair interpretation of Suetonius’
words—‘the Jews who were continually rioting at the instigation of
Chrestus he (Claudius) expelled from Rome.’[21]
To write Chrestus for Christus was quite natural to a Latin
historian, for Chrestus was a name in use at Rome 10as
extant inscriptions show,[22]
and both Tertullian and Lactantius[23]
tell us that in their time the common pronunciation was “Chrestus’ and
‘Chrestianos’ for ‘Christus’ and ‘Christianos.’ The French word ‘chrétien’
is to this day a living proof that this mode of spelling still survives.
Dion Cassius[24]
informs us that the edict of expulsion, owing to the disturbance that it
caused, was only partially carried out, but that the synagogues were
closed and the clubs licensed by Caligula dissolved. Among the Jews that
were expelled were no doubt the chief leaders of the contending factions.
Among these were Aquila and Priscilla or Prisca, of whom we read in the
Acts of the Apostles that in consequence of Claudius’ edict of banishment
they had left Rome and taken up their abode at Corinth, and were there
brought into personal contact with St. Paul, when in the summer of 51
A.D.
he first visited that city.

The
intercourse which thus began was destined to be long-continued and
intimate, and it was through this intercourse (such at least is my firm
persuasion) that that eager desire to visit Rome, to which the Apostle
gives such strong expression in his Epistle to the Romans some five or six
years later, was first fanned into flame. Not without purpose did St.
Luke, who never wastes words, give such an elaborate description of this
husband and wife upon their first entry on the stage of his history.
‘Having departed from Athens’ we read Acts 18:1 ‘Paul came to Corinth and
having 11met
a certain Jew, by name Aquila, a Pontian[25]
by
birth, who had lately come from Italy, and Priscilla his wife, in
consequence of the decree of Claudius that all the Jews should depart from
Rome, betook himself to them, and because they were of the same trade he
abode with them and wrought at his craft, for they were tentmakers by
trade.’ Here undoubtedly St. Luke intended in the first place to give the
reason for the strong bond of sympathy which at once sprang up between
these two Asiatic Jews and fellow craftsmen. The description of Aquila as
a Jew does not mean that he was not a Christian. Had he and his wife
required to be converted and baptised, it is almost impossible that so
important a fact should not here have been mentioned. Compare the notice
about Apollos, Acts 18:24-27, The Jews who were actually exiled by
Claudius were no doubt the leaders of the contending factions, Aquila and
Prisca having been in 50 A.D.
as afterwards among the foremost of the Christian congregation. In the
eyes of the Roman authorities, as has already been pointed out,
Christianity was as yet simply a Jewish sect. The emphatic statement that
Aquila was a Jew applies, as the context shows, not to his religion but to
his race, and the separate mention of Priscilla without that epithet may
be taken to imply, firstly, that she was not Jewish but Roman, and
secondly that she was to play an independent role in the furtherance of
St. Paul’s missionary work. Never indeed in the New Testament is the one
name mentioned without the other, and in four out of the six places in
which they occur the name of Prisca or Priscilla stands first.[26]
From this fact the deduction has been made, and in my opinion rightly,
that Prisca was of 12more
honourable position by birth than her husband, and that she possessed
private means which she freely used in furthering the cause of the
Gospel.[27]

I
have spoken, not without good reason, of this intercourse which began in
51 A.D.
at Corinth, as being long-continued and intimate. During the whole of his
eighteen months’ sojourn in that city St. Paul lived under their roof, and
when he sailed from Cenchraea for Ephesus in the early spring of 53
A.D.
Aquila and Prisca accompanied him. At Ephesus they took up their abode,
Acts 17:11, 18, 19, and at once set about active missionary work, while
awaiting the Apostle’s return some six months later. During this interval
it was by their instrumentality that the eloquent and learned Apollos was
instructed in the full Christian faith, and probably it was by their
advice that he entered upon, what we know to have been, his fruitful
ministry at Corinth. Acts 17:24-27.  Throughout the two years and a
quarter, Acts 19:10, that St. Paul made Ephesus the centre of his labours,
Aquila and Prisca resided there. Probably their house was as before the
Apostle’s home; in any case we know that it was a meeting-place in which
the faithful gathered for worship, for in his First Epistle to the
Corinthians, I Cor. 16:19, which was written from Ephesus some time in the
autumn of 55 A.D.,
St. Paul sends the salutations of Aquila and Priscilla and ‘of the Church
that is in their house.’ From these his close friends and fellow-workers,
with whom he was for some five or six years in constant communication, St.
Paul would therefore have ample opportunities for learning much about the
condition of the Church in Rome, and this not only from Aquila and Prisca
themselves but from other exiles and the many travellers and traders from
the capital whom he must have met at their house, and who would bring with
them the latest news as to the state of things in the Imperial City. Among
other things would 13come
the glad tidings of the accession of the young and popular Nero in the
place of Claudius, and of the happy prospects that his reign promised, a
promise that was justified so long as the boy emperor was content in his
public administration to place himself under the guidance of his wise
counsellors Seneca and Burrhus.[28]
What is certain is that St. Paul at the close of his two years’ ministry
at Ephesus began to look ahead and to plan fresh schemes of missionary
activity. His first task was to journey through Macedonia to Corinth,
where his presence was called for and needed; his next to pay another
visit after a long absence to Jerusalem, but ‘after I have been there,’ he
said, ‘I must see Rome.’[29]
His departure from Ephesus was more hurried than he expected, for in the
riots raised by Demetrius and his fellow-craftsmen against the Christians
and the Jews with whom as usual they were confounded,[30]
Paul seems to have narrowly escaped from the violence of the angry throng,
and to have succeeded in doing so only through the self-sacrificing
courage of Aquila and Prisca,[31]
who risked their own lives in order to save his.

It
had been Paul’s intention to remain at Ephesus till Pentecost, but this
serious tumult compelled[32]
him to leave much earlier in the year 56 A.D.,
and at the same time and for the same reasons his friends Aquila and
Prisca may have taken the opportunity to start on their return journey to
Rome, the edict of banishment having now been allowed to lapse by the
conciliatory policy of Nero’s advisers. The friendly Asiarchs, who warned
Paul not to adventure 14himself
into the theatre, would indeed feel it their duty, as soon as the riot was
appeased, for the sake of the peace of the city to insist that both Paul
and his protectors Aquila and Prisca should quit Ephesus for a time. Paul
himself carried out his plan of journeying by way of Troas and Philippi to
Corinth, where he passed the three winter months of 56–57 A.D.
The project of a visit to Rome, so long cherished, so often hindered, now
began to assume a concrete shape in his mind, and the result was the
writing, almost certainly in the early spring of the year 57 A.D.,
of the Epistle to the Romans. Now this great epistle stands in the
forefront of the Pauline writings chiefly as a theological treatise, but
apart from its theology it has other claims, as an historical document of
the highest evidential value, deserving from the Church historian’s point
of view the closest and most attentive study.

In
the first place then this Epistle bears upon its face the clearest
testimony to the existence in 57 A.D.
of a distinguished and well-established Christian Church in Rome, a Church
already of some standing and in which the Gentile element predominated.
The mere fact that the Apostle, at a time when many cares pressed heavily
upon him,[33]
took the pains to write this elaborate and carefully reasoned statement of
his doctrinal teaching to a body of Christians that he had never visited,
is evidence to the very important place they occupied in his thoughts. His
words, ‘I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all that your faith[34]
is proclaimed in all the world,’ may be somewhat hyperbolic, but they mean
at any rate that the Roman Church was well known and highly spoken of in
all the various Christian communities with which St. Paul was acquainted.
And the impression these words convey is emphasised by the Apostle’s later
declaration affirming even in stronger terms his personal assent to this
widely received estimate of the character of Roman Christianity, for no
language could be 15more
explicit than this—‘I am persuaded, my brethren, I myself also concerning
you, that even of yourselves’—i.e. without any extraneous help derived
from such an epistle as I am sending to you—‘you are full of goodness,
filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.[35]
Such a declaration implies a conviction based upon trustworthy evidence,
otherwise his readers would be the first to perceive that here was only
high-flown language covering an empty compliment. Such an utterance from a
man and a writer like St. Paul presupposes an already existing
acquaintance with a considerable number of Roman Christians, whose
goodness, knowledge, and sound judgment he has tested and learnt to
appreciate. Indeed it is not too much to say that Paul in writing this
epistle is somewhat oppressed by a sense that those whom he is
addressing—for a reason, which will appear presently—may possibly think
that they have no special need either of his instruction or of his
admonition. His epistle is an apologia for venturing to be so bold as to
propose to pay a visit to Rome, even though that visit should be no more
than a brief pause in the course of a journey farther west.[36]
He evidently had in his mind the fear that in Rome
he had, as a preparatory step, to fight down disparaging rumours
concerning himself, his teaching, and his office, and that he might be
regarded as an intruder. If he had found it necessary even in Corinth, a
Church which he himself had planted, and where even now he was writing, to
defend strenuously his Apostolic claims and doctrine,[37]
how much more in Rome among Christians of old standing, in whose
conversion he had had no hand. So in the Introductory Salutation St. Paul
sets forth his credentials. He is no mere ordinary apostle, a man
commissioned by the Twelve or by some particular Church to go forth to
some limited field of missionary work. His 16Apostleship
differed from that of their own Junias and Andronicus,[38]
whom later he describes as ‘apostles of note,’ differed—perhaps it is
implied—even from that of so eminent a man as Barnabas,[39]
in that he [Paul] like the Twelve had been chosen out and set apart[40]
for
the preaching of the Gospel by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself—chosen and
set apart for preaching the Gospel among all nations and bringing them to
the obedience of the faith.[41]
And though the Gospel has already been preached in Rome and with such
success that the faith of the Roman Christians is spoken of everywhere in
terms of praise, yet Rome too lies within the bounds of his commission,
and so he has many times planned, though hitherto always hindered, to come
to them that he might have some fruit amongst them also. Indeed he calls
God to witness that he had prayed continually that he might be prospered
on his way to visit them, that he might be able to impart to them some
spiritual gift for their confirmation. Immediately, however, adding lest
he should offend their susceptibilities by any assumption of
superiority—‘that is that while I am amongst you we may be jointly
strengthened by the mutual faith of you and me.’[42]

But if the note of apologia can be discerned here in the
introductory verses, it comes out much more strongly in what may be styled
the body of the epistle. The difficulties of interpretation theologically
of the Apostle’s reasoning and arguments, in that grand series of chapters
which end with chapter xi., lie outside my province. Those difficulties,
admittedly very great, are caused in no small degree by our ignorance of
the circumstances, of the persons, parties, questions, and situation
generally with which St.
Paul was 17dealing.
We lack in fact the historical background. It is my present object to try
to trace out from the materials, which the epistle itself supplies in
definite even though in parts but in faint outline, such features of that
background as are discernible through the mist of ages. Leaving on one
side for the present the extremely important autobiographical passage in
chapter 15, also the valuable testimony as to the composition of the Roman
Church furnished by the list of salutations in chapter 16, which require
special and separate treatment, we can, I think, make certain
well-grounded assertions concerning the three distinct groups of persons
whom St. Paul had in his thoughts as he wrote this epistle. These three
groups are (1) a body of Jewish Christians, (2) a larger body of converted
Gentiles, (3) the mass of unbelieving Jews. St. Paul leaves in no doubt
that the third group comprised the vast majority of the Roman Jews,
including practically the whole of official Israel. And what is more, as
yet these rabbis, elders, and rulers of the Synagogues were not so much
actively hostile to the preaching of Christianity as simply deaf,
contemptuously indifferent. Those of Group No. 1, the Jewish Christians,
were relatively small in number, but though small they were divided into
two very distinct sections or parties. One of these sections consisted of
Jews like Aquila and others mentioned in the salutations, who were Paul’s
friends and fellow-workers; the other, an extremely influential and
energetic section of Judaeo-Christians, Jews rather than Christians, who,
like the Judaisers who are brought before us in the Epistle to the
Galatians and elsewhere, were bitterly opposed to St. Paul, disputed his
Apostolic authority, traduced and misrepresented his teaching, and
denounced him as a renegade from the faith of his fathers. The Gentiles of
the second group formed the chief element in. the Roman Church. Of these
no doubt a certain number had been converted straight from heathendom, but
the assumption which runs through the epistle, that they were familiar
with the Jewish Scriptures in the Septuagint version, and with the Jewish
ceremonial law, would 18seem
to point to their being largely drawn from the class of Greek-speaking
‘God-fearers,’ which, as I have already stated, in all the chief towns of
the Empire, and conspicuously in Rome, formed a fringe round the
synagogue. If it be asked, what was the impelling motive which led to the
writing of this epistle, and which dictated the order and character of the
arguments, the answer surely is not far to seek. St. Paul had made up his
mind after many hesitations to visit Rome, but from information that had
come to him he was not altogether happy about the reception he would meet.
To the Christian community of the imperial city as a whole he was a
stranger, and as I have said, he was aware that there was a Judaising
faction there busy at their usual task of stirring up enmity against him.
His own words (Rom. 3:8), ‘as we are slanderously reported and as some
affirm that we say, let us do evil that good may come,' are a proof that
he had been informed that his great doctrine of Justification by
Faith had been seized upon by these adversaries to represent him as an
antinomian. He therefore felt it to be incumbent upon him to answer at
once and in advance these Judaistic attacks by a full exposition of his
teaching on the subject of Justification by Faith, and at the same
time he desired to make clear what was his real attitude towards many
disputed questions concerning Judaism and the observance of the Mosaic
Law, and the relation between Jew and Gentile in the Church of
Christ.

If
this be granted then a flood of light is immediately thrown on the
interpretation and import of that central portion of this epistle, which
begins with the words (Rom. 2:17)—‘but if thou bearest the name
. . . of Jew and possessest a law to rest upon’—up to the end of
chapter xi. It is unmistakably addressed to Jews.[43]
Not 19to
the strict orthodox Jews of the Synagogues, who in their haughty aloofness
would not be likely either to see or to read the Apostle’s arguments. The
Jews addressed were men who had indeed accepted Jesus as the Jewish
Messiah but who perhaps only the more obstinately for that very reason
clung to their Judaism, and hated the thought of losing any of those
exclusive religious privileges, as Israelites, which were their pride and
boast. The doors of the Christian Church, as they conceived it, might be
open to Gentiles, but only if they would consent to be circumcised and to
conform to the ordinances of the Mosaic Law.

But
though in form he is addressing himself to Jews, Paul’s thoughts are all
the time directed to his Gentile readers, and it is for their sake and for
their edification quite as much as for the persuasion of his Jewish
fellow-countrymen that he step by step leads up to the establishment of
the fundamental principles of the Gospel that he preached. This is made
quite clear by his own words (chap. 11:13, 14): ‘For it is to you the
Gentiles that I am speaking. Nay, more,[44]
in so far as I am the Gentiles’ Apostle I make-the-most-of[45]
my
ministry; if by any means I may stir to jealousy my own flesh and might
save some.’[46]

The
lengthy list of salutations to be found in the first 20
twenty-three verses of chapter 16 is a passage of great and peculiar
interest historically, for it enables us to form some estimate, not
conjecturally but positively, concerning the social and racial composition
of the Roman Christian community at this time. It also gives indirectly an
indication of the close relations of intercourse subsisting between the
Churches of the chief cities of the Mediterranean coast. The very fact of
its historical importance has however caused doubts to be raised by
certain critics of the hypercritical school whether the passage is really
an integral part of the Epistle to the Romans. Its Pauline authorship is
not assailed, but attempts have been made to show that the list where it
stands has (wholly or in part) been displaced and that it should be
attached to some hypothetical epistle addressed at some unknown time to
another Church, most probably to that of Ephesus. It must suffice here to
say that I accept without hesitation the whole of this sixteenth chapter
as an original and authentic portion of the Epistle to the Romans on the
following grounds. First, to quote the words of Professor Kirsopp Lake,
one of the most recent advocates of the Ephesian hypothesis, ‘There is no
trace of any external evidence for doubting that this section has always
belonged to the epistle.’[47]

This
then is admitted, and it counts heavily. Secondly, all the names, some of
them rare and uncommon names, contained in the list of salutations have
been discovered in the inscriptions found in the colurnbaria and
cemeteries of Rome, of a date contemporary or nearly contemporary with the
date of the epistle: an evidence in favour of authenticity, which, if not
absolutely conclusive, is at least remarkably convincing.[48]

The
arguments in favour of the anti-Roman hypothesis are of a purely a
priori character, and there are only two of them, it seems to me, of
weight sufficient to deserve consideration. The first is the difficulty of
imagining that Paul could possibly 21have
been acquainted with the names of so many members of a Church he had never
visited, and still more that he should have been able in quite a large
proportion of cases to add personal details. With this argument I have
already dealt in part. Besides the information which he must have acquired
from Aquila and Prisca during those four years they spent together at
Corinth and Ephesus, he would be brought into contact at those two great
centres of Mediterranean traffic with a constant stream of travellers and
traders from Rome. Among these would be Christians, whose first thought
would be to find their way to the friendly house of their banished
fellow-citizens. Criticism here, as in many other instances, has gone
astray from its failure to recognise the great facilities for intercourse
in Apostolic times, especially between cities on the shores of the
Mediterranean, and the freedom with which those facilities were used. The
travels of Apollonius of Tyana as told by Philostratus are a good instance
in point, for Apollonius was a contemporary of St. Paul. The Apostle did
not draw up, we may be sure, this unusually long list of salutations
without an object. Diffident, as he seems to have been, of the welcome he
would receive upon his visit to Rome, may we not regard these salutations
as in some sense a tactful act of diplomacy? He wished to remind those who
are mentioned that he bore them in his remembrance and affection, and at
the same time to bespeak, as it were, their good offices with their
brethren for the time when he actually came amongst them.[49]
That Paul himself could not have made out such a list with its many
details without assistance is possibly true, but that assistance was at
his very side, as his words were being written down. Very interesting, as
a mark of the genuineness of this passage, is the sudden interpolation, in
the midst of the Pauline phrases, of a salutation 22from
another hand, ‘I, Tertius, the scribe of this epistle, salute you.’[50]

Tertius
was then a Roman Christian, and he had doubtless been chosen by Paul on
this occasion to act as his amanuensis, for this very
reason.

The
second argument relied upon by the critics is at first sight more
plausible. Paul in writing his First Epistle to the Corinthians from
Ephesus sends salutations from Aquila and Prisca and the Church in their
house, adding according to one group of authorities the words ‘with whom
also I am a guest.’[51]

Nothing
could be more natural, and the inference seems to follow that when
previously the Apostle was a guest in their house at Corinth, there
likewise that house was a meeting-place for a Christian congregation.
About a year and a quarter after this Paul, writing from Corinth to the
Romans, again sends salutations to these same fellow-workers (Aquila and
Prisca), and then after a eulogistic reference to their having risked
their lives to save his, and thanking them not only in his own name but in
that of all the Churches of the Gentiles, he proceeds to salute ‘the
Church that is in their house.’ Now to the critics with whom I am dealing
it appears very improbable that if Aquila and Prisca had only returned to
Rome so recently there could have been already a Church in their house
with the existence of which St. Paul could have been sufficiently
acquainted to deem it worthy of a special salutation. It is pointed out,
moreover, that in his Second Epistle to Timothy (an epistle, by the by,
not accepted by these same critics as Paul’s or contemporary) Paul sends
salutations 23from
Rome to Prisca and Aquila apparently at Ephesus, and the suggestion is put
forward that during the decade which intervened between the first and last
of these salutations the home of this husband and wife had always been at
Ephesus. This being so, this section of the sixteenth chapter of the
Romans cannot belong to the epistle in which we find it.

It
might be thought a sufficient answer to this allegation that external
authority in its favour is confessedly nonexistent—to say nothing of the
fact that tradition with no uncertain voice connects the names of Prisca
and Aquila with definite localities in Rome.[52]

But
quite apart from this there is no real difficulty in accepting the usual
interpretation of the salutation.

When
the Apostle parted at Ephesus with the faithful companions and
fellow-workers who had been so long of such service to him, one may be
quite sure it would not be without full knowledge on both sides of their
future intentions and plans. On his reaching Corinth a whole twelve-month
at least must have passed, ample time for news to have come, by some of
those using the highway of traffic across the isthmus, that Aquila and
Prisca were again settled at Rome and carrying on their work there on the
same lines as at Corinth and Ephesus. There is nothing whatever impossible
in this, nothing certainly to afford the slightest pretext for the
rejection of a well-authenticated text. Personally however I do not
believe that there is any necessity for entering upon the consideration of
what I venture to call ‘time-table calculations.’ There is nothing in St.
Paul’s words to warrant us in assuming that this ‘Church in the house’ of
Aquila and Prisca was new to Roman Christianity. The banishment decreed by
Claudius was according to Dion Cassius most leniently carried out and
would not involve the confiscation of property.[53]

It
is one of those minute points that are often so significant, 24that
St. Paul speaks of the house at Ephesus as that of Aquila and Prisca, of
the house at Rome as that of Prisca and Aquila. If Prisca were, as is
commonly supposed, when they were resident at Rome the more important
person of the two spouses, and the owner of property, then the unusual
inversion of the names is explicable. But at Ephesus where they were
strangers the house would naturally be described as that of Aquila and
Prisca, the husband’s name standing first in order of precedence.[54]

Since
Aquila and Prisca were expelled, it must have been, as I have already
said, because they were recognised leaders of that faction of ‘Chrestus’
of which Suetonius speaks. May one not be justified then in the assumption
that the readiness of the exiles at Corinth and at Ephesus to offer
hospitality and a room for worship in their house was but the continuation
of their previous practice at their Roman home before their banishment?
But if the Church in their house was thus in existence before 50
A.D.,
it is scarcely likely that the owners in their enforced absence would
forbid its use. It would but lessen their sense of separation, if they
were thus able to be of continued service to their poorer Christian
brethren in Rome. Such a supposition of course involves certain
assumptions about the state of the Church in Rome in 50 A.D.,
but I hope to be able to show that it is a reasonable assumption, and
consistent alike with the positive and traditional data that we possess.[55]

The
Epistle to the Romans is itself a proof that Christianity was firmly
established in the metropolis some time before 57 A.D.;
there must therefore before that date have been houses where the faithful
met. Tradition mentions only two such places of assembly—the house of
Prisca and Aquila and the house of Pudens. The localities are still
supposed to be marked by the very ancient Churches of St. Prisca and St.
Pudenziana.

Granting
then that this list of salutations is addressed to 25the
Roman community, let us glance very briefly at its general features. A
study of the names enables us to draw the conclusion that the Roman
Christians mainly belonged to the class of Greek-speaking freedmen and
slaves.[56]

Certain
of these are addressed by the Apostle as kinsmen (συγγενεῖς),
and it is safe to assume that these were Jewish fellow-countrymen.[57]

It
is possible that some others not so designated may have been Jews, but the
probability is the other way. The evidence already adduced points clearly
to a hostility to Paul among the Judaeo-Christians at Rome, which would
naturally exclude them from receiving friendly greetings. Two names in
this group deserve special mention. ‘Salute Andronicus and Junias my
kinsmen and my fellow-prisoners, who are men of mark among the apostles,
who also were in Christ before me’[58]

is
the remarkable language of the seventh verse. When and where these two had
been Paul’s fellow-prisoners we know not. Paul in his Second Epistle to
the Corinthians—only a few months before—had spoken of frequent
imprisonments[59]

of
which we know nothing. The very fact that he describes Andronicus and
Junias as ‘men of mark among the apostles’ makes it probable that he had
encountered them in his journeys, for the term ‘apostle’ at this early
period seems to have been applied generally to delegates sent out with a
commission by some Church for some special field of missionary work, and
to have carried with it as a necessary qualification the possession of
charismatic gifts.[60]

But
a still greater distinction is conferred on these two by 26Paul’s
admission that ‘they were in Christ before me,’ words which imply that
their conversion dated back at least as far as the days of St. Stephen’s
activity. Possibly they belonged to that ‘Synagogue of the Libertines’[61]

in
which Stephen argued, and afterwards became, a little later, the first
preachers of the Gospel at Rome. Very interesting are the salutations to
the households of Aristobulus and Narcissus. These would all be freedmen
or slaves. Aristobulus may well have been that grandson of Herod the Great
who is described by Josephus[62]

as
making his permanent home at Rome. This is borne out by the salutation to
‘Herodion my kinsman’ intervening between those of the two households. The
name suggests a member of the family to which Aristobulus belonged.
Narcissus can scarcely be any other than the freedman and favourite of
Claudius. He had been put to death some three years before this epistle
was written, but his slaves and dependents, though they would after his
execution be incorporated in the Imperial household, might still retain
the distinctive name of Narcissiani.[63]

It
is possible that Aristobulus may have been dead in 57 A.D.,
and have bequeathed his slaves to the emperor. If so, both these groups
would form part of that vast body of freedmen and slaves known as Caesar’s
Household, to which St. Paul refers writing from Rome to the Philippians:
‘all the Saints salute you, specially they of Caesar’s
Household.’

How
vast a number composed the imperial household may be gathered from the
statement of Lanciani (‘Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries,’
p. 130) that in two columbaria of the servants and freedmen of
Augustus and Livia the remains of no fewer than 6000 persons have been
found. The two groups of names in verses 14, 15 seem to indicate that they
were members of two smaller households 27belonging
to private persons.[64]

The expression ‘all the Churches of
Christ salute you’ (v.
16) is unique in the
New Testament, and when taken in connexion with the language of this
epistle elsewhere upon the high repute of the Roman Church may be held (to
quote the words of Dr. Hort) to signify that that Church was already ‘an
object of love and respect to Jewish and Gentile Churches alike.’[65]

And
now we come to a consideration of the all-important autobiographic passage
in the fifteenth chapter,[66]

which contains, if rightly interpreted, an explanation at once of St.
Paul’s attitude of deference to the Roman Church and the widespread esteem
in which, as he declares, it was held by its sister Churches. This passage
may be regarded as an expansion of the earlier autobiographic section with
which the epistle opens. The object and the tone are the same, only here
the Apostle enters more into detail. After recounting how ‘from Jerusalem
and round about even to Illyricum I have fully carried the Gospel of
Christ, but in doing so making it my pride-and-care[67]

to
preach not where Christ was named lest I should build upon another man’s
foundation,’ Paul proceeds ‘wherefore also I was hindered many times[68]

from
coming to you. But now having no more place in these regions and having
had these many years a keen-longing[69]

to
come to you, whenever I journey to Spain [I will come to you][70].

for
I hope to see you, as I am journeying through, and to be sent forward on
my way thitherward by you after I have first in some measure 28enjoyed-my-fill
of your company.’ The meaning of this statement, though the language and
sequence of thought are somewhat involved, is nevertheless, so it seems to
me, as plain and direct as it is possible to be. St. Paul had been
hindered hitherto from visiting Rome, because he had made it a cardinal
principle of his missionary life not to trespass in fields opened out by
other men’s labours, in Churches whose foundations others had laid. May
not this ordinance of limitation imposed by the Apostle on himself afford
the explanation of Acts 16:6, 7, ‘And they went through the region of
Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the
word in Asia; and when they came over against Mysia, they assayed to go
into Bithynia; and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not’? If the South
Galatian theory be accepted (I myself accept it unreservedly), it is
really remarkable how small a portion of what is now known as Asia Minor
was actually evangelised by St. Paul.[71]

Even
now he does not propose to come to Rome with any intention of undertaking
a prolonged spell of missionary work, but merely to pay a brief passing
visit on his journey further west, in order to make the acquaintance of
the Roman Christians, of whom he had heard so much, and to receive at
their hands a friendly and encouraging send-off when he leaves them for
the scene of his new labours in Spain. It has often been asked, why St.
Paul, if he meant that another had preached at Rome and been the founder
of the Roman Church, did not mention his name? The answer is a very simple
one: he was not writing for the information of students and critics of the
twentieth century, but for the Roman Christians, who knew the
facts.

There
had then been a founder of this great Church of world-wide fame with whom
Paul was well acquainted and into whose special sphere of successful
preaching he did not think it right to intrude. Who was he?[72]

All
tradition 29answers
with one voice the name of St. Peter. In the next lecture I shall attempt
to set forth the grounds on which this tradition rests, and to show that
its acceptance, so far from being inconsistent with those fragments of
early Christian history which have been preserved to us in the Acts and in
the Epistles, serves to complete and bind them together and to explain
much that is otherwise inexplicable in the rapid spread of Christianity in
the three decades which followed the Great Day of Pentecost.

[1]
See
Sir W. Ramsay’s Article in Hasting’s Dict. vol. v. ‘Roads and Travel in
N.T. Times’; his Seven
Churches
, p. 15, and elsewhere in his writings. Friedlander, Sittengeschichte Roms
, ii. 3; Sanday and Headlam, Ep. to Rom . p. xxvi; Merivale, St. Paul at
Rome , p. 5; Miss C. Skeet, Travel in the First Century ; Renan, Hibbert
Lectures , 1850, ‘The Influence of the Institutions, Thought, and Culture
of Rome on Christianity and the Development of the Catholic Church,’ Eng.
tr., pp. 17–19.

[2] Cicero
( De Officiis , ii. 21) speaks of the number as 2000 in 102
B.C.

[3] At
the end of the Republic and under the Empire it was not a rare thing to
meet rich Romans possessing many thousands. Under Augustus a simple
freedman, C. Caecilius Isidorus, although he had lost a considerable part
of his fortune during the civil wars, still left at his death 4116 slaves.
Pliny, Historia Naturalis , xxxiii. 47.

[4] Suetonius,
Caesar , 41; Dion Cassius, xliii. 21.

[5] Dion
Cassius, lv, 10.

[6]
Among the upper classes it had become the fashion to speak and write
Greek; for trade purposes and among the lowest classes of mixed race a
debased Greek was used, as the language most generally understood.
Juvenal, Sat. iii. 60 ‘ Non possum ferre, Quirites, Graecam urbem ’; ibid.
62 ‘ Jam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes.
’ Also 73–80.

[7] Berliner,
Abraham ( Geschichte der Juden in Rom , one of the best monographs on the
subject), thinks that there must have been Jewish settlers in Rome before
63 B.C. , or else it is difficult to account for Cicero, when pleading for
Flaccus in 59 B.C. , affecting to be intimidated by the crowd of Jews
thronging the Aurelian steps—‘ multitudinem Iudaeorum flagrantium
nonnunquam in concionibus ’ (Cic. pro Flacco xxviii.), and probably he was
right. Cicero
however was no doubt greatly exaggerating his fear for his advocate’s
purpose. See Sanday and Headlam, Ep. to Rom. p. xix.

[8] Philo,
Leg. ad Caium , 568

[9] The
Transtiberine ‘Ghetto,’ which was first removed across the river in 1556.

[10] Schürer,
Hist. of the Jewish People in N.T. Times , 2nd Div., vol. ii. pp. 234,
259, 264. Josephus ( Ant.
xiv.) gives a number of the edicts conferring these privileges. See also
Suet. Caesar , 42. The action of Julius Caesar was the more remarkable as
he took energetic steps to repress all collegia which were unable to prove
ancient prescriptive rights and liberty of association generally. Consult
also Harnack, Expansion of Christianity , vol. i. pp. 5–10, 350–371;
Fouard, S. Pierre
, c. xiv. ‘Les Juifs de Rome’; Renan, Hibbert Lectures , Eng.
tr., pp. 45–55.

[11] Josephus
( Ant . xviii. 5) tells us that the anger of Tiberius was aroused by the
complaint of Saturninus, a friend of the emperor, that his wife Fulvia,
who was a proselyte, had been induced to give money for the service of the
Temple at Jerusalem under false pretences. Suetonius ( Vit. Tib. 36)
writes: ‘ Iudaeorum iuventutes per speciem sacramenti in provincias
gravioris caeli distribuit, reliquos gentis eiusdem vel similia sectantes
urbe summovit, sub poena perpetuae servitutis nisi obtemperassent. ’
Tacitus ( Ann. ii. 85) confirms the account of Josephus about the sending
of this body of Jews to Sardinia and characteristically remarks ‘ si ob
gravitatem caeli interiissent; vile damnum. ’ The action of Tiberius was
confined to the Jews of Rome.

[12] Much
may be learnt about the position of the Jews in the Empire and of
Caligula’s disposition towards them in Philo’s Legatio ad Caium , in which
he gives an account of the reception by the emperor of a deputation from
the Jews of Alexandria headed by himself.

[13] Tacitus,
Hist. v. 5 ‘ Non regibus haec adulatio, non Caesaribus honor. ’

[14] For
the Herodian family at Rome
see Josephus, Ant.
xviii. 5, 6.

[15] Harnack,
Expansion of Christianity , i. 7–11; Schürer, 2 Div. ii. 220–242; Allard,
Hist. de Perséc. c. i. sec. 1; Hardy, Studies in Roman Hist . pp. 14–28;
Workman, Persecutions in Early Church , pp. 108–115.

[16] These
people, described in the Acts and elsewhere as σεβόμενοι
(or φοβούμενοι
) τὸν
Θεόν
or simply as σεβόμεηοι
, were by Schürer, in the 1st ed. of his Geschichte d. Jüdischen Volkes im
Zeitalter Jesu Christi , described as being ‘the Proselytes of the Gate’
of the Talmud. He followed the commonly received opinion. He has however
since then, by a careful study of inscriptions, been led to change his
opinion. In his 4th ed. 1909 (iii. 173 ff.) he is able to show that the
term ‘proselyte of the gate’ was not used until a much later period than
that with which we are dealing, and that the real meaning is that given
above, heathen who had partially adopted Judaism, but without becoming
proselytes. See
Kirsopp
Lake,
Early Epistles of St.
Paul
, pp. 37–39.

[17] The
synagogues in Rome
were each separately organised and independent. The entire body of Jews of
the capital were not allowed, as at Alexandria, to form a state within a
state, self-administered with an Alabarch at their head. The
names of seven synagogues have been discovered in the inscriptions of the
ancient Jewish cemeteries: (1) Αὐγουστησέων
, (2) Ἀγριππησίων
, (3) Bolumni, (4) Καμπησίων
, (5) Σιβουρησίων
, (6) Ἀιβρέων
, (7) Ἐλαίας
.
The first two were probably the synagogues of the households of Augustus
and Agrippa. The fourth and fifth belong to Jewish settlements on the
outskirts of the Campus Martius and in the crowded Suburra. The third may
have been built by some one of the name of Volumnus, or have been
associated with him in some unknown way. The seventh, the synagogue of the
Olive Tree, may have suggested the simile of Rom. xi. 17–24. The
sixth inscription does not seem to have referred to any special synagogue
but to have been a generic term, ‘a synagogue of the Hebrews (or Jews).’
In addition to settlements in the Suburra and near the Campus Martius, the
discovery of two ancient Jewish cemeteries on the Appian
Way,
one of them close to the Porta Capena, bears evidence to yet another
Jewish colony at this point, not inconsiderable in numbers. The
Transtiberine, however, was always by far the largest of the Jewish
quarters. See Schürer, 2 Div., ii. 247–249; Fouard, S.
Pierre
, pp. 316–322; Garrucci, Cimetero degli antichi Ebrei in Roma , and
Marucchi, Elements d’Archéologie Chrétienne, vol. ii. pp. 208–226,
259–274.

[18] For
the chronology of these Lectures see Note A of the
Appendix.

[19] Tertullian
( Apol. xxi.) says that the Church until the time of Nero’s persecution
grew up under the shadow of the synagogue: ‘ quasi sub umbraculo
religionis insignissimae certe licitae. ’

[20]
Suet.
Calig. 57. See also for later notices of Laureolus, Jos. Ant. xix. 18;
Martial, Spect. 7; Tertullian, Valent. 14. In Mayor’s Juvenal , vol. ii.
p. 40, the following note appears to Sat. viii. 167: ‘ Laureolum Schol. In
ipso mimo Laureolo figitur crux unde vera cruce dignus est Lentulus, qui
tanto detestabilior est quanto melius gestum imitatus est scenicum. . . .
Hic Lentulus nobilis fuit et suscepit servi personam in agendo mimo. ’

[21] Suet.
Claudius , 25 ‘ Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma
expulit. ’

[22] CIL.
vi. 10233. The following inscription, which I came across, seemed to me
specially interesting from the collocation of the names Chrestus and
Paula. ‘ P. Ælius Chrestus et Cornelia Paula hoc scalare adplicitum huic
sepulchro quod emerunt a fisco agente Agathonico proc [-uratore]
Augustorum nostrorum quod habet scriptura infra scripta. Gentiano et Basso
cons. vii Kal. April. ’ Date, 211 A.D.

[23] Tert.
Apol . 3: ‘ Sed ut cum perperam Chrestianos pronuntiatur a vobis, nam nec
nominis certa est notitia penes vos ’; Lact. Inst. Divin. iv. 17: ‘ Sed
exponenda huius nominis [Christi] ratio est propter ignorantium errorem,
qui eum immutata litera Chrestum solent dicere. ’ Compare the title Le Roy
très Chréstien of the French Kings.

[24] Dion
Cassius, lx. 6: τούς
τε Ἰουδαίους,
πλεονάσαντας
αὖθις
χαλεπῶς
ἂν
ἄνευ
ταραχῆς
ὑπὸ
τοῦ
ὄχλου
σφῶν
τῆς
πόλεως
εἰρχθῆναι,
οὐκ
ἐξήλασε
μέν,
τῷ
δὲ
δὴ
πατρίῳ
νόμῳ
βίῳ
χρωμένους,
ἐκέλευσε
μὴ
συναθροίζεσθαι.
τάς
τε ἑταιρείας
ἐπαναχθείσας
ὑπὸ
τοῦ
Γαίου
διέλυσε.

[25] I.e.
a native of the Roman Province of Pontus.

[26] For
further details about Prisca and Aquila
see Appendix, Note B. It is noteworthy that St. Paul
according to the authority of the best authenticated readings always calls
the wife Prisca, while St. Luke names her Priscilla. Both writers, except
in one case, I
Cor. xvi. 19,
place the name of the wife first. St. Luke is wont to use the diminutive
forms of names, which were usual in conversation, i.e. Priscilla, Silas,
Sopatros; St.
Paul
the forms Prisca, Silvanus, Sosipatros. See Ramsay, St.
Paul the Traveller , pp. 267–8.

[27]
Plumptre,
Biblical Studies , p. 417; Hort, Romans and Philippians , pp. 12–14;
Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller , pp. 253 f., 267 f.; Zahn, Intr. to N.T.
i. 263, etc. etc.

[28] For
the good government of the Empire during the first five years of Nero’s
reign, known in history as the quinquennium of Nero, see Henderson’s
Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero .

[29] Acts,
xix, 21.

[30] Acts 19:33, 34

[31] Rom. 16:34:
Ἀσπάσασθε
Πρίσκαν
καί
Ἀκύλαν
τοὺς
συνεργούς
μου ἐν
Χριστῷ
Ἰησοῦ,
οἵτινες
ὑπὲρ
τῆς
ψυχῆς
μου τὸν
ἑαυτῶν
τράχηλον
ὑπέθηκαν
. Comp. 2 Cor. i. 8. The group
of MSS. D, E, F, G, add παῤ
οἷς
καί
ψενίζομαα
, pointing to the tradition in the Western Church that St.
Paul
lived at Ephesus
in the house of Aquila
and Prisca.

[32] Acts 19:31

[33] II Cor. 2: 4, 5, 13; 4:8-11; 11:27, 28; 12:10,
20, 21; Acts 20:19-25

[34] 2
Rom. i. 8: ἡ
πίστις
ὑμῶν
= your profession of Christianity.

[35]  Rom. 15:14:
Πέπεισμαι
δέ,
ἀδελφοί
μου, καὶ
αὐτὸς
ἐγὼ
περὶ
ὑμῶν,
ὅτι
καὶ
αὐτοὶ
μεστοί
ἐστε
ἀγαθωσύνης,
πεπληρωμένοι
πάσης
γνώσεως,
δυνάμενοι
καὶ
ἀλλήλους
νουθετεῖν.
Notice the emphatic position of καὶ
αὐτὸς
ἐγώ
. Compare 16:19:
ἡ
γὰρ
ὑμῶν
ὑπακοὴ
εἰς
πάντας
ἀφίκετο

[36] Rom. 15:24

[37] II Cor. 10:12-18; 11-13 and
elsewhere.

[38] Rom. 16:7

[39] There
are grounds, as will appear in the sequel, for believing that Barnabas had
already visited Rome.

[40] Rom. 1:1:κλητὸς
ἀπὸστολος,
ἀφωρισμένος
εἰς
εὐαγγέλιον
θεοῦ
.

[41] Rom. 1:5:
δἰ
οὗ
[Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ
τοῦ
κυρίου
ἡμῶν]
ἐλάβομεν
χάριν
καὶ
ἀποστολὴν
εἰς
ὑπακοὴν
πίστεως
ἐν
πᾶσιν
τοῖς
ἔθνεσιν.

[42]
Rom. 1:12:
τοῦτο
δέ
ἐστιν
συνπαρακληθῆναι
ἐν
ὑμῖν
διὰ
τῆς
ἐν
ἀλλήλοις
πιστέως
ὑμῶν
τε καὶ
ἐμοῦ.
See Zahn, Int. to N.T. pp. 355-8, 369. Kirsopp
Lake,
Early Epist. of St.
Paul
, pp. 378-9.

[43] Rom. 2:17-19; 3:1, 2; 4:1.
That this body of Judaeo-Christians were still active in Rome,
and doing their utmost at a later time to counteract St.
Paul’s
influence and oppose his teaching, see Phil1:15, 16; 3:1-6 It was to these
same Jews that chap. 14.1-23 appears to have been addressed. The extreme
particularity about meats and rigid asceticism were characteristic of the
party of the circumcision. See Zahn, Int. to N.T. pp. 366-7.

[44] So
Sanday and Headlam give the force of the μὲν
οὖν
in this verse. Commentary on Romans , p. 324.

[45] Lit.
glorify.

[46]
On
St. Paul’s attitude towards Jewish Christianity and Judaism see the
extremely interesting section of Harnack’s Neue Untersuchungen sur
Apostelgeschichte , 1911 (Eng. tr. by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson in Crown Theol.
Lib.), pp. 28–47. Of the evidence supplied by that section of the Epistle
to the Romans from which these words are taken, Harnack writes: ‘ Der
Grosse Abschnitt—c. 9–11—ist aus der Feder eines Juden geflossen der mit
allen Fasern seiner Seele an seinem Volke hängt ’ (p. 31). And again
concerning the simile of the olive-tree in c. xi.: ‘ Man beachte wohl, das
(gläubige) Israel κατὰ
σάρκα
ist and bleibt “der güte Ölbaum” (gegenüber dem wilden Ölbaum der Heiden);
jeder Israelit ist ein “naturlicher Zweig” dieses guten Ölbaums, wenn er
auch unter Umständen abgehauen werden muss, and er d.h. das gläubige
Israel κατὰ
σάρκα
ist die Wurzel an deren Safte and Fettigkeit die eingepropften wilden
Schösslinge teilnehmen und die sie trägt ’ (p. 32). See also the quotation
from Herzog in note. I have already pointed out the possibility that the
name of one of the Roman synagogues ‘The Olive Tree’ may have suggested
this simile to St.
Paul.

[47] Kirsopp
Lake, The Early Epistles of St. Paul, their motive and origin , p. 325
ff.

[48] Sanday
and Headlam, Ep. to Romans , pp. xciii–xcv; Lightfoot, Ep. to Philippians
, see dissertation on Caesar’s Household, pp. 169–176.

[49] Zahn
( Int. to N.T. i. 388) says: ‘Who does not see that all these personal
references are due to Paul’s desire to make the Church feel that it is not
such a stranger to him as it seems, and at the same time are indications
of an effort on his part to bring himself into closer touch with the
Church where as yet he was really a stranger?’

[50] Rom. 16:22.  In
the first-century Cemetery
of Priscilla close to the mausoleum of the noble family of the Acilii
there may be seen to-day a Greek inscription in red (a proof of its very
early date): ΤΕΡΤΙΑΔΕΛΦΕ ΕΥΨΥΧΙΟΥΔΙ C ΑΘΑΝΑΤΟ C The Tertius here mentioned
is probably not St. Paul’s
amanuensis, but there is no reason why he should not be. It is interesting
that a well-authenticated tradition places the tombs of Aquila
and Prisca in the vicinity of this inscription. Horace Marucchi, Eléments
d’Archéologie Chrétienne , ii. 419. See also i. 104.

[51] παῤ
οἷς
καὶ
ξενίζομαι
. D, F, lat, goth, Bede.

[52] The
Church
of St.
Prisca
and the Cemetery
of Priscilla.
See Appendix, Special Note B.

[53] Relegatio
, not deportatio . Dion Cassius, lx. 6.

[54]
See
Zahn, Int. to N.T. p. 390, for a useful comment on the movements of
Aquila
and Prisca.

[55] See
Marucchi, Eléments d’Archéologie Chrétienne , iii. p. 180 ff and 364
ff.

[56] They
would consist of people of every nationality, but among those converted to
Christianity probably a large proportion were Orientals by
race

[57] Compare
Rom. ix. 3:
ηὐχόμην
γὰρ
ἀνάθεμα
εἶναι
αὐτὸς
ἐγὼ
ἀπὸ
τοῦ
χριστοῦ
ὑπὲρ
τῶν
ἀδελφῶν
μου, τῶν
συγγενῶν
μου κατὰ
σάρκα,
οἵτινές
εἰσιν
Ἰσραηλῖται
.

[58] ἀσπάσασθε
Ἀνδρόνικον
καὶ
Ἰουνιᾶν
τοὺς
συγγενεῖς
μου καὶ
συναιχμαλώτους
μου, οἵτινές
εἰσιν
ἐπίσημοι
ἐν
τοῖς
ἀποστόλοις,
οἳ
καὶ
πρὸ
ἐμοῦ
γέγοναν
ἐν
Χριστῷ
. It is possible that Ἰουνίαν
might be feminine = Junia, but it is generally taken as masculine, Junias
an abbreviation for Junianus.

[59] II Cor. 11:23:
ἐν
φυλακαῖς
περισσοτέρως.

[60] See
Harnack, Expansion of Christianity , i. 398–412; Lightfoot, Epistle to
Galatians , p. 93; Kirsopp Lake, Early Epistles of St. Paul , pp. 108–110.
Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 23:
ἀπόστολοι
ἐκκλησιῶν
.

[61] Acts 7:9.
Andronicus and Junias may, of course, have been among the ‘strangers of
Rome,
Jews and Proselytes,’ who were converted on the Great Day of
Pentecost.

[62] Josephus,
Ant.
xx. 1. 2; Bell.
Iud. ii. 11. 6.

[63] Lightfoot,
Epistle to Philippians , Dissertation on Caesar’s Household, p. 169;
Sanday and Headlam, Romans , pp. 405–6.

[64] Lanciani
(p. 132) says that in certain columbaria on the Esquiline
at least 370 members of the household of Statilius Taurus are
buried.

[65]
Sanday
and Headlam, Romans , pp. 128–9; Hort, Romans and Ephesians , i. 52.

[66] Rom. 15:14-29

[67] v. 20 φιλοτιμούμενον
= (lit.) priding myself, or endeavouring earnestly.

[68] διὸ
καὶ
ἐνεκοπτόμην
τὰ
πολλὰ
τοῦ
ἐλθεῖν
πρὸς
ὑμᾶς.
τὰ
πολλὰ
seems to be the equivalent of the πολλάκις
of 1:13
= the many times to which I have already referred: ‘ οὐ
θέλω
δὲ
ὑμῠς
ἀγνοεῖν,
ἀδελφοί,
ὅτι
πολλάκις
προεθέμην
ἐλθεῖν
πρὸς
ὑμᾶς
καὶ
ἐκωλύθην
ἄχρι
τοῦ
δεῦρο.
’

[69] 9ἐπιποθίαν.

[70] These
words are omitted in the best MSS., but are necessary to complete the
sense

[71] Bigg,
Comment on 1 Peter , pp. 73-4.

[72] Professor
Kirsopp Lake in his Early Epistles of St. Paul , pp. 378-9, writes: ‘St.
Paul clearly implies that the Roman Church was another man’s foundation,
and that he had hitherto refused to preach in such places where others had
made a beginning: this was the reason why he had never yet been to Rome.
“Wherefore” he says “I was greatly hindered from coming to you.” That
“you” implies that the Church was someone else’s foundation and the
“wherefore” explains that this was his reason for not coming. He then goes
on to explain why he now proposes to depart from his principle: there is
now “no place left for him in these districts,” i.e. from Jerusalem
to Illyricum.
Thus with a proper exegesis the meaning of this passage is that the Church
of Rome was founded by some one else, and the question will always remain,
why not St. Peter?’ A remarkable admission on the part of this
writer.