Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 20.djvu/752

728 ROMANS [EPISTLE. and more inevitable. Under what circumstances and con- ditions the separation actually took place is not now known. We may be sure, however, that it was not brought about without violent internal commotions ; it is probable even that the edict of Claudius itself may have had its occasion in these. The remark of Suetonius (Claud., 25) readily admits of being interpreted in such a sense : " Judaeos impulsore Chresto 1 assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit." So interpreted, these words contain our first notice of the Christian Church in Rome ; its earliest constitution must have taken place precisely then. For, as has already been seen, the edict of banishment was probably never carried out, or at all events did not continue long in force. Un- fortunately, we do not know the date of it, but it must have belonged to the later years of Claudius, for in the beginning of his reign the disposition of that emperor towards the Jews was friendly (Jos., Antiq., xix. 5). In its context also Acts xviii. 2 implies a late rather than an early date, say about 50-52 A.D. ; and there is nothing against this in the circumstance that the edict is mentioned by Dio Cassius towards the beginning of his account of that reign, for in that particular passage the author is characterizing his subject in a general way and not referring to events in their chronological sequence. If the foregoing suppositions are correct, Paul's epistle to the church at Rome was written some six or eight years after its formation. Paul was stajing in Corinth at the time, in the last month before the eventful journey to Jerusalem which led to his captivity (58 A.D.). The evi- dence that the epistle was written during this last sojourn in Greece, which is only briefly alluded to in Acts xx. 2, 3, is simple and conclusive. We know from the Epistles to the Corinthians that shortly before this stay the apostle had set on foot throughout the churches of Macedonia and Achaia a collection on behalf of the needy church at Jerusalem (1 Cor. xvi. ; 2 Cor. viii.-ix.). This collection it was his wish to carry in person from Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 3-6; 2 Cor. i. 16; Acts xxiv. 17). But the Epistle to the Romans was written, as we learn from the author himself (Rom. xv. 24-28), when the collection had just been concluded and he was on the point of taking it with him to Jerusalem, in other words, before his departure from Corinth, but not long before. We have now to inquire into the motive which led the apostle precisely at such a juncture to address a communi- cation so full and elaborate as this to the Christian com- munity at Rome, with which he had no personal acquaint- ance. In general terms we have it from himself at the beginning and end of the epistle (i. 8-15, xv. 14 sq.). He had proclaimed the gospel in all the East from Jerusalem to Illyricum (xv. 19). He regarded his work in these quarters as for the present finished, and he felt impelled to preach Christ crucified also in the West. He was already looking towards Spain (Rom. xv. 24, 28). He wished first to take the collection to Jerusalem, and, that once accomplished, his labours in the West were to begin forthwith. But there, in Rome, the metropolis of the world, a community already existed which had come into being apart from any effort of his. For his activity in the West it was obviously of the utmost importance to secure the organization for himself and his message. Should its attitude be cold, he would be left without any secure base of operations. The purpose of the present epistle, then, is, to speak generally, this : to secure a connexion with the community at Rome, to gain it for himself and the gospel he carried. But had it hitherto been without that gospel ? The community was at any rate already a Christian one. 1 The vulgar pronunciation "Chrestus" for "Christus" is borne witness to in other passages (Tert., Apol., 3, and Ad Nat., i. 3; Lactan., fnst. Div., iv. 7, 5). And, if perhaps it was in need of fuller teaching, why did he not wait until he arrived in person in Rome in order to give it ? Surely he could have done this more effect- ually by word of mouth than by a written treatise. Why, then, did he send this written message before him ? There must have been some perfectly definite circumstances which led him to take this course. The nature of these will become clear to us when we seek to ascertain what at that juncture was the state of the Christian community in Rome. Assuming that church to have arisen out of the midst of the Jewish community of the place, the most obvious conjecture is that at the period of the present letter it still continued to consist mainly of Jewish Christians, i.e., that the majority of its members were Jews by birth who even after their conversion to Christ still continued to regard the Mosaic law in its totality as binding on them. This is the view which Baur in particular sought to establish, 2 as against the previously prevailing belief in the Gentile Christian character of the church in question. Baur's position was adopted by many subsequent critics, the most careful and elaborate defence of it, though with many modifications in detail, being that of Mangold. 3 An inter- mediate position between the older view and that of Baur has been sought by Beyschlag, 4 who works out the theory that the Christian community in Rome may possibly have been Jewish Christian in its Way of thinking, yet at the same time Gentile Christian in its origin. In direct opposition to Baur, on the other hand, Theodor Schott 5 has again maintained the older view as to its Gentile character, and in all essential points this is also defended by Weizsacker, 6 who, however, recognizes in Baur's hypo- thesis certain elements of truth by which the older theory must be corrected and supplemented. In presence of the facts we are compelled to adopt the view of Weizsacker as on the whole the right one. For the Jewish Christian character of the church Baur and Mangold, besides the argument from its presumable origin, have adduced a number of isolated texts. On the majority of these Mangold no longer lays any stress, since they admit of being otherwise interpreted. Thus when Paul designates Abraham as "our father" (rov irpoiraropa rjfuav' iv. 1) he indeed includes his readers under the ?}/xc3i/. But in 1 Corinthians, an epistle certainly addressed to a church of Gentile Christians, the fathers of Israel are also called "our fathers" (1 Cor. x. 1). The Christian Church is in point of fact the true Israel ; hence the patriarchs of Israel are its "fathers." 7 In another place (Rom. vii. 1) Paul addresses his readers as persons "who know the law." But this holds true not of born Jews alone but of Gentile Christians as well, to whom also the Old Testament was a sacred book. Mangold finds an " irrefragable evidence of the Jewish Christian character of the community in Rome" in Rom. vii. 4 : "ye also, beloved brethren, have died to the law " (/cat vyuets e6avaT<a6r]T T< VO/AW). If they have died to it they must of course have once lived under it : so argues Mangold quite correctly. But the inference that 2 First of all in his essay " Ueber Zweck u. Veranlassung des Ro'mer- briefs," in the Tiibinger Zeitschr. /. Theol, 1836, hft. 3, p. 59 sq. 8 Der RiJmerbriefu. d. Anf tinge der romischen Gemeinde, Marburg, 1866; Der Romerbrief u. seine geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen, Mar- burg, 1884. 4 " Ueber das geschichtliche Problem des Rdmerbriefs, " in Stud. u. Krit., 1867, p. 627 sq. 8 Der Romerbrief, seinem Endzweck u. Gedankengang nach ausgelegt, Erlangen, 1858. 8 "Ueber die alteste rornische Christengemeinde," in Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theol., 1876, p. 248 sq. 7 The words Kara a&pKa in Rom. iv. 1 are not to be construed with Trpoirdropa ^nCiv but with the verb evpyKtvai. Abraham is thus de- signated as ' ' our father " only iu the spiritual and not in the physical