W. (William) Sanday.

A critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans online

. (page 10 of 71)
Online LibraryW. (William) SandayA critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans → online text (page 10 of 71)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

vtKpovs . . . KOI nf] dadevfjaas tj
vioTd KarevoTjae rd eavrov aaifxa
ijST] vfveKpu fifvov {kKarovrafTTjs
wovviTdpxo>''),i{aiT^v viicpaxTtv t^s
HTjTpai Scrppai" tls Si rtjv inay-
ytKiay rov Qeou ow SitKpiOr) t^
amaTia, dAA* iveSwapiuOT] ry
niffTfi, Sovs S6^ay t% ©e^, icai
v\7]po(pop7]9fis oTt b i-n-^yyekTai
dvvards eari Kal voirjaai.

Rom. xiL 19 €j«oJ (KSiKTjau, tyib
avTanoSwau, Kiyei Kvpios,

Heb. xi. 1 1 , 13 TTtffTtt Kalavifi 'Sdppa
ivva/iiy ils Kara^oKi^v anep^iaTos
(Xa^fV Kal napcL Kaipuv yXiKia.^, fTrfi
viarov ^yrjaaro tuv (irayyttKa-
fiei/ov Sid Kal d<p' ivus iyivvijBriaav,
Kal ravra veveKpaiixtvov . . ,

19 Koyiadpuvoi on Kal itt vfKpair
iydpeiv dvvaros 6 Qt6t.

Heb. X. 30 i/iol iKS'iKijtts, iy5>

When we pass to the Epistle of St, James we approach a much
more difficult problem. The relation between it and the Epistle
to the Romans has been often and hotly debated; for it is
a theological as well as a literary question. The passages which
resemble one another in the two Epistles are given at length by
Prof. Mayor in his edition of the Epistle of St. James, p. xciii, who
argues strongly in favour of the later date of the Romans. The
following are among the most important of these ; we have not
thought it necessary to repeat all his instances :

Rom. iL 1 Sti &vaito\6yr)T0i tt, S>
ivOpojirf rras 6 Kpivojv iv Si ycip
icpiy( IS rhv tnpov, aeavTvv Kara-
Kpivfis' TcL yap avTcL vpdaaus i

Rom. ii. 13 ov ycip of dxpoaral
wifiov Siiiaioi irapcL [to)] @(^ d\\' ol
wotrjTal vofiov SiKaiaO-qcfovTai.

Rom. iv. I rlovv ipovfitv (vprjKivat
APpad/x rhv irponaTOpa t^/xSiv
Hard, adpna ; d yap 'AjSpad/i i f
tpyojy iSiKatiaOr), (Xd KavxiJh^-

Rom. iv. 20 (Is SI T^i* (irayye\iay
ToO Qeov ov SieKpiOr) rp dmffTl<f,
dXA* ivtSwaiiwdrj r^ marct.

Rom. ▼. 3-5 Kavx^fufOa iv tois
$\[^tatv, (ISoT fs oTi ■^ 6\iipis vvo-
fiovijv KaTfpy antral, ij SI virofioy^
SoKi/irfV, ij Si SoKifiT) fKrriSa' ;)
Si (\ms ov Karaiffxvvtif St* ^ dydvi)


James iv. Il a*^ KaraXaXtire AXX17-
Xaiv, dSe\(poi. 6 KaraXaXuv dSf\<l>ov, ^
Kpivwy Toy dSeXcpoy avTOv, KaTaXaXd
Vv/xov, Kal Kpiv ft vvfiOV tl Si vofioy Kpi-
vfis, oiiK el jTOiJjT^y vofxov, dXKd KpiT'qs.

James i. aa yiveadt Si voitjtuI
k6yov, Kal nfi ixovoy aKpoarai vapa-
Xoyi^dfievot iavTovs.

James iL ai 'A^pad/i 6 warfip
ijHSiv ovK i( ipyuv iSiKaidiOrj,
dvtviyKas 'laaaK rdy vioy auTOv ivl t6
SvaiaaTTjpioy ;

James L 6 alTflru Si iy viartt
fojSiy SiaKpiydfievos' 6 ydp SiaKpiv6-
fifvos toiKf KkvSojvi 0a\daai)s dvapu'
iojxiv^ Kol ^im^onivtp.

James i. a-4 vdaav xapii" ^yrjffaaOt
Srav veipaapLois ■nepnriarjTt iroiKiKois,


mareais Kan py antral vvo ixovrjv. ri S\
ivo/jLovi} ipyov TfKuoy fx*'Tw, iVa ^t(


* The LXX of DeoL zxxii. 35 reads iv fipi-tpfi (KSiicqcrttJt dfTatodwaiu, orat
€^a\y 6 vovs avra/v.


Rom. viL 33 PX^irej Si Irfpov v6/jioy Tames !▼. i n66ev nSXt/iot xai w60e»

Iv roii fiiktai fiov, avriar pa- Aiax°' ^^ Vfuv \ ovk tvTtiJSfy, (k tSi9

Tfvofxfvov TO) vofjiqi Tov yoos fiov, ^SovSiv iifutiv rwv ar paTtvofiivw it

tcai alxfiaXajTl^ovrd fie (v t& vo/xqi rijt roit iiiKtaiv i/fiSiv ;
a/iapriai rat Cvri iy rots fitKeai ftov.

Rom. xiii. la anoOaipLtOa ovr Jamei I. ai &iro9introi vaffaw

Tci epya rod ckotovs, ivSvawfxtOa di fivnapiav Koi irfpiaadav Kaxiai iv vpai'

TcL ov\a ToC tptaros. ttjti bi^aa6f rbv iix<pvTov \6yoy riy

9wafi(yoy oSiatu rcis ifvx^s vftSir.

We may be expressing an excessive scepticism, but these resem-
blances seem to us hardly close enough to be convincing, and the
priority of St. James cannot be proved. The problem of literary
indebtedness is always a delicate one ; it is very difficult to find
a definite objective standpoint ; and writers of competence draw
exactly opposite conclusions from the same facts. In order to
justify our sceptical attitude we may point out that resemblances
in phraseology between two Christian writers do not necessarily
imply literary connexion. The contrast between aKpoarai and noirjTal
was not made by either St. Paul or St. James for the first time;
metaphors like OquavpiCi-i^, expressions like iv 7//Ae'pa opytjq comparecl
with iv ^fifpa a(f)ayTJ{ (both occur in the O.T.), the phrase vufins
(Xfvdfpiat might all have independent sources. Nor are there
any passages where we find the same order of thought (as in
I Peter) or the same passage of the O.T. quoted with the same
variations — either of which would form stronger evidence. The
resemblance is closest in Rom. v. 3-5 = James i. 2-4 and in
Rom. vii. 23 = James iv. i, but these are not sufficient by them-
selves to establish a case.

Again, if we turn to the polemical passages, we may admit
that ' Paul betrays a consciousness that Abraham had been cited
as an example of works and endeavours to show that the word
XoylCopai is inconsistent with this.' But the controversy must have
been carried on elsewhere than in these writings, and it is equally
probable that both alike may be dealing with the problem as it
came before them for discussion or as it was inherited from the
schools of the Rabbis (see further the note on p. 102). There is,
we may add, no marked resemblance in style in the controversial
passage further than would be the necessary result of dealing
with the same subject-matter. There is nothing decisive to prove
obligation on the part of either Epistle to the other or to prove
the priority of either. The two Epistles were written in the same
small and growing community which had inherited or created
a phraseology of its own, and in which certain questions early
acquired prominence. It is quite possible that the Epistle of
St. James deals with the same controversy as does that to the
Romans; it may even possibly be directed against St. Paul's
teaching or the teaching of St. Paul's followers; but there ^s no



proof that either Epistle was written with a knowledge of the
other. There are no resemblances in style sufficient to prove literary

One other book of the N.T. may just be mentioned. If the
doxology at the end of Jude be compared with that at the end of
Romans it is difficult to believe that they are quite independent.
It may be that they follow a common form derived from Jewish
doxologies, but it is more probable that the concluding verges of
the Romans formed a model which was widely adopted in the
Christian Church. We certainly seem to find doxolotj^ies of the
same type as these two in i Clem.-Rom. Ixiv, Ixv. 2 ; JSlart. Polyc.
XX ; it is followed also in Eph. iii. 20. The resemblance in form
of the doxologies may be seen by comparing tliem with one

Rom. xvi. «5-a7 t^ i\ Iwa.- Jude 84, 85 ry 8J Ivvafxivvt

fiiyy v/iSj OTTjpl^at , . . n6v<a ifivXc^ai vfjiSs d-irTaiarovs, Kal arfjaai
90<p^ 9t^, Sid 'Irjaov Xpiarov, .. . d/fOJ/zoyy . . .fxofq) We^) aairijpi
[^J 4 S^^a «lt Toi>t alaiyat, ^fJ-'^v, Sid. 'iTjffov Xpiarov rov Kvpiov

illiluv, S6^a, fieyaKojniivr], xparos Koi
i^ovaiOf np6 navrvs rov oiuvos Kal vw
Mai (It vavras Tovi aiuvat, afirjv.

When we enter the sub-apostolic age the testimony to the use
/f the Epistle is full and ample. The references to it in Clement of
~iome are numerous. We can go further than this, the discus-
bions on TTioTtf and 8iKatoavvr) (see p. 147) show clearly that Clement
used this Epistle at any rate as a theological autiiority. Bishop
Lightfoot has well pointed out how he appears as reconciling and
combining four different types of Apostolic teaching. The Apostles
belong to an older generation, their writings have become subjects
01 discussion. Clement is already beginning to build up, however
inadequately, a Christian theology combining the teaching of the
diiferent writers of an earlier period. If we turn to Ignatius'
letters what will strike us is that the words and ideas of tiie Apostle
liave become incorporated with the mind of the writer. It is not
so much that he quotes as that he can never break away from
the circle of Apostolic ideas. The books of the N.T. have given
hini his vocabulary and form the source of his thoughts. Polycarp
quoies more freely and more definitely. His Epistle is almost
a cciuo of N.T. passages, and among them are undoubted quota-
tio'ib trom the Romans. As the quotations of Polycarp come from
Roiu., I Cor., 2 Cor., Gal, Eph., Phil., i Tim., 2 Tim., it is
difficdtt not to believe that he possessed and made use of a collec-
tion jr the Pauline Epistles. Corroborative evidence of ihis might
be ft.and in the desire he shows to make a collecdon of the letters
of Ig..atius. He would be more likely to do this if he already pos-
sesses collections of letters; and it is really impossible to maintain




that the Ignatian letters were formed into one collection before
those of St. Paul had been. Assuming then, as we are entided to
do, that the A[)Ostolic Fathers represent the first quarter of the
second century we find the Epistle to the Romans at that time
widely read, treated as a standard authority on Apostolic teaching,
and taking its place in a collection of Pauline letters.

The following are quotations and reminiscences of the Epistle
in Clement of Rome :

Rom. i. ai iffKorlafft] ^ dtfif-
rcTot avTuiv KapSia.

Rom. ii. 34 T^ y^p ovofia rov
&fov di' ifidi 0\aff<prj fieirat er
Tois tdveffiv, KaOuis -yiypaiTTat.

Rom. iv. 7 "MaKapioi S)v a<pi-
6r]ffav ai dvo/xiai ical wv tirt-
KaXvipOrjaav ai d/jtapriai'

8 fxaieapiot dvrjp S ov /xf^
Xoyiarjrai Kvpios afiapriav."

9 6 ixaKapia fibi ovv ovr«s

tTTt Tr]V TTfpnO/XTjV l ^ Kal tTTl rijv

d/cpoPvaTiay I

Rom. vi. I tI ovv ipovfiev;
knifih'coij.iv Trj dpinpria, tva jj X^P^^
ir\foydaji ; firj yivoiro.

Rom. i. 29 ircirXrjpwj^fvovs vaar)
dSiKta, Troi'T]plq, irXfovt^iq, Kaiciq,
pitarovs (pOlivov, (puvov, epiSos, 36-
TaKd\ovs, 6fOffTvyfis, l^piardsy
vitf pTi<pdvovi, dXa^ovai, hpevpe-
rds Kiucwv, yovfvatv undOits, dawi-
Tovs, daviOirovs, daropyovs, uveXerj-
fiovas' oiT(Pes, to StKaiu^ta rov 0fov
iiriyvuVTa, on oi rd TOiavra
Ttpdaaovrfs ii^ioi Oavdrov (laiv,
oil pLovov aind iroiuvcTii', dWd koI
avytvdoKovaiv tois irpdaaovaii'.

Rom. ix. 4, 5 wi' . . . 1) XaTpda
Kal al errayye\iat, wv ol naTtpes, ital
l£ uy o Xpiaros rd icarcL cdptca.

Rom. xiii. i, a vUffa ipvx^ i^ov-
oiats vvfp(xovaais v-noTactniaOw oil
yap tariv ^ovaia d pfj into Ofov, ai
64 ovaai vTTo WfoC Tfrnyfxfpai iloiu
Start i dyriTaaaofifVos td fiov^i(f

Clem. 36 did TovTov fj iavvtrot
Kal eaKOT<upi€VTj Sidvota fiputiv dfo-
GdXKii (Is rd OavpaCTuv aiiTov (pus.

Clem. 51 Std Ti <jK\T]pvv9i]vi.u
avrSiv rds davvirovs KapSias.

Clem. 47 ware leal P\aff<pT]pLiat
fTn(p(pea6ai tw uvopLart Kvpiov Std
rfjv vpteTepav dcppoavvrjv.

Clem. 50 MaKaptot wv d<pi-
Orjaav ai dvopiiai ical wv firexa-
\v(p9r]aav ai dpLapriai' pLandpios
dvfjp Soil p.T) \oyiarjrai Kvpios
dpapriav. oiiSe tariv iv toi aropaTi
aiiTov 56\os. ovTos 6 panapia pius
iytveTO tnl Toiis iK\f\eypei'ovs inro tou

0€Oi; K.T.\.

Clem. 33 T* ovv votrjcrcupifv, dStX-
^01 ; dpyfiacupifv diri Trjs dyaOoTroitat
Kal iyicaTaXf'nrcaftev ttjv dydnrjv ; pir)-
GapiMs tovto edaai 6 deanoTTjs k(p' ^puv
ye yev7]6rjvai.

Clem. 3,T diroppiipavTes &<p' tavTwy
irdaav dSmiav nal dvop-iav, wXeo-
ve^lav, fpds, KaKor]6eias Tt Kal
S6\ovs, ypiOvpia novs t( kciI Kora-
Ka\idsy9eo(TTvyiav,vTrf pr](paviav
T€ Kal d\a^ovfiay, KevoSo^iav t( koI
d(pi\o^iviav. ravTa yap oi rrpda-
aovTfs aTvyrjTol ry 0e^ vnapxovatv
oil piovov 5h oi vpaaoovTis aiird,
dWd Kol ol avvfvdoKovyTfs avrois.

Clem. 3a If avTov ydp Uput Kal
AiviTai itdvTis ol \ttTovpyovi'T(s t^
6vaiaaT7]piq) tov Qeov- «£ aiiTov i
Kvpios 'iTjffovs t6 Kard a&pica' l£
aiiTov ^aai\(is nal apxovres Kal ■^yoi-
fiivoi Kard t^v 'lov^av.

Clem. 61 av, Siffirora, IStuKas t^v
i^ovalav Tijs /SacjAtiai aiiTuts Std rod
ptya\oiTpeiToii khI di'fKSirjyrjrov Kpd-
Tovs aov, (Is Tb yivwaKOVTas r/pias T^
vn6 aov aiiTois dtdofiivt^v S6^aif mi




Tp TOW 0«oS ?«aTO70 dvOfcrrrjKev ol
8c dvdeaTtjKoTes iavTois Kpifxa Kij-

Tififly vnoTafffffaOai avrois, firjSlv ivatf-
Ttovixfvovs Ty 0e\riixaTi aov.

References in the letters of Ignatius are the following:

Smyr. I a\r]9u>s ovra ex fivovt
Aa0i5 Karci adpiea, vlor &fov
Kara. 0e\t]fxa Kal Svvafitv,

Cf. Trail. 8 (^both quote O. T.).

Eph. l8 irov Havx-qaii rSiiv \(yo-
ftevcov avviTwv ;
(Close to a quotation of i Cor. i. 20.)

Eph. 19 0eoD avOpa)iriv(ui (pavepov-
[tivov €ii KaivdrrjTa aidiov ^w^s.

Mag. 5 5»' ciL kdi fifj avOatperais
ixo'fiiv rd diToOavuv ei'y to aiirov
vd9os, TO ^v aiiTOV oiiK tariv iv ijixiv.

Trail. 9 Kard rb 6[j.oiup.a hs koX -qfj-di
Tois Tnarevovras avrSi ovrui iyepei 6
var^p avTov iv X. 'I., ov x*'/''* Td
iiKr]6ivby ^^v ovk exoftty.

Mag. 6 tls rivov Koi StSax'^y


Mag. 9 ol iv waKaioTi npdyp.aa'tv
dvaarpatpivTiS fls KaivoTTjra (\vidos

Trail. 9 ts tcai &\r}$ais fiytp9r) drrd
vtKpwv, eytipavTos aiiTov tov
varpbs avTov.

Eph. 9 irporjToifiaaiifVM eh oIko-
SofifjV Qfov irarpos.

Trail. 2 oil ydp fipufi&mv Kal
WOT Siv eiatv Oiokovoi.

Eph. I hv evxo/Jiai Karct 1. X. v/ms
dyanqv, KoX vavrai vnis air^ kv 6pu)t6
TtjTi (Ivai.

The following resemblances occur in the Epistle of Polycarp :

Rom. i. 3 TOV yevofiivov hit anip-
ftUTOs AajilS KUTa capita, tov
opiadkvros vlov 0eov iv Svvafid.

Rom. ii. 24.

Rom. ill. 37 voO oSf ^xavxV***

Rom. vi. 4 ovTO) Kal flfieis iv
BaivdrTjTi (aiijs ire ptnaTriffOJfXiV,

Rom. vi. 5 ; viii. 17, 39.

Rom. VI. 17 (Is Sr wap(i69r]T§
riitov SiSaxTJs.

Rom. vii. 6 SxrTt SovXdetv iJ/iSj
iv KaivoTTjTi ■jTVfVfiaTos Kal ov naXaio-
TT/Ti ypdfXfxaTOS.

Rom. viii. 11 6 iytipas X. "L

i« VfKpSlV.

Rom. ix. 23 (TKevrj iKiovs A vpo-
ijToifxaafv eh Su^av.

Rom. xiv. 17 ov yap icTiv 1)
$affi\(ia TOV 0€o5 fipwais Kal

Rom. XV. 5 t6 auri <ppovtiv iv
iWrjKois KUTcL X. 'I.

Rom. vi. 13 Kal rcL pit\r] vfiwv
tv\a SiKatoavvTjs.

Rom. xiii. la ivdvau/xtOa 82
TO 0Tr\a TOV (panos.

Rom. xii. 10 t^ <pi\aSe\<pi<f
(It dWTjKovi (piXoOTopyoi, rp
rtfiy iWiqKovs vporjyovfievot.

Rom. xiii. 8 6 ydp dya-nojv Tbv
irtpov y6t*oy wtv^rjpuKfv k.t.K.

Pol. 4 6ir\i<TWfXf$a t9is ivKoit
T$s ^iKaioavvrii,

Pol. 10 fraternttatis amatores
diligentes invicem. in veritate sociaii,
mansuetudinem Domini alierulri
praestolentes, nullum despicienles.

Pol. 3 idv yap ris tovtwv ivros 17
9nr \ti pwKtv tvTo\ijV BiicatoaiiiTji' d
ydp ix'"^ dyd-rijv fuucpdv ioTW vdarfl


Rom. xiv. lo TravTfs fap irapa- Pol. 6 Koi trivrai Stt wapa-

VTTja6fji(0aTw0T]fiaTtTov^Qfov arrjuai rZ P^fxart rov Xpiarov,

. . . KOI (Kaarov vvip iavrov \6yov

12 apa [ovv] tKaaros i^fiSiv rrtpl SoOfai.
iavTov kvyov S^ati^ [t^ ©tyj*.

It is hardly worth while to give evidence in detail from later
authors. We find distinct reminiscences of the Romans in Aristides
and in Justin Martyr *. Very interesting also is the evidence of the
heretical writers quoted by Hippolytus in the Refutatio omnium
haeresium ; it would of course be of greater value if we could fix
with certainty the date of the documents he makes use of. We
find quotations from the Epistle in writings ascribed to the Naas-
senes", the Valentinians of the Italian school*, and to Basileides'.
In the last writer the use made of Rom. v. 13, 14 and viii. ig, 22
is exceedingly curious and interesting.

If we turn to another direction we find interesting evidence of
a kind which has not as yet been fully considered or estimated.
The series of quotations appended from the Testament of the
Twelve Patriarchs can hardly be explained on any other hypo-
thesis than that the writer was closely acquainted with the Epistle
to the Romans. This is not the place to enter into the various
critical questions which have been or ought to be raised concern-
ing that work, but it may be noticed here —

(i) That the writer makes use of a considerable number of
books of the N. T. The resemblances are not confined to the
writings of St. Paul.

(2) That the quotations occur over a very considerable portion
of the book, both in passages omitted in some MSS. and in
passages which might be supposed to belong to older works.

(3) The book is probably older than the time of Tertullian,
while the crude character of the Christology would suggest a con-
siderably earlier date.

Kom. i. ^ Tov dpiaOfVTos vlov 0fov Test. Levi. 18 teal vvtvfia d^iov

iv Swafifi KUTCL vytvfta afiW' Cvvrji earat iir' avrois. . . .
ovvrjs. , .

Rom. ii. 13 ou ycip ol aKpoaral Test. Aser. 4 of 7(i/> ayaOoi avSptt

v6/iov SiKaioi irapd t^ @(q). .... Slicaioi elat vapd Tf) 9c^.

* rov XpiffTov Western and Syrian.

* aTruSuiffd B D F G.

' Tw &€S) om. B F G.

* Rom. li. 4 = Dial. 47 ; Rom. iii. 11-17 - Dial. 27 ; Rom. !▼. 3 =- Dial. 93;
Rom. ix. 7 = Dial. 44 ; Rom. ix. 27-29 = Dial. 32, 55, 64; Rom. x. 18 —
Apol. i. 40; Rom. xi. 2, 3 = Dial. 39.

' Hipp. /^e/. V. 7, pp. 13S. 64-140. 76 = Rom. i, 20-a6

* Ibid. vi. 36, p. 286. 9-10 = Rom. viii. 11.

* Ibid. vii. 25, p. 370. 80 — Rom. v. 13, 14; ibid. p. 368. 75 -• Rom. yiii.
19, aa.




Rom. V. 6 Itj yctp Xpiffros ovtojv
^fiuv aaOivwv en Kara Katpbv vnip
dffe0a>v dvfOavf.

Rom. vi. I tntftivojiifv tj

Rom. vi. 7 6 ydp dnoOavoiJv
dtSiKaicurai dnb Trjs duapriai.

Rom. vii. 8 dipopp^jv SJ \aBovaa
if dfiapria Sid r^s evToKrjs lea-
Teipydaaro iv epol vaaav k-niBvp-iav.

Rom. viii. 28 oi'Sa/JCf 5e on toTs
ayaTraiai t6v Qtiv iravra ffvv-
tpyei els dyaOdv.

Rom. ix. ai fj ovk (x*i t^ovaiav
d Kf pa/if vs TOW irr]\ov, tK tov aii-
Tov (pvpapuxTos TTOt^ffai t fily lis rifu^y
OKfvoi, t Si (U drifuav ;

Rom. xii. 1 irapaaTrjffai rd adjfiara
VfiSiv Ovaiav (juaav, a-y/ai', ivapearov
Ty 6ey, rriv KoytKrjv Xarpfiav

Rom. xii. tlft^ vikw vnh tov xaKOv,
dWcL v'lKa ivT^ dyaOZ rb KaKov.

Rom. liii. 13 diroOw/^fOa ovv rd
tpya TOV okStovs, ivSvawpaOa S\
Td SnXa TOV (pojrSi.

Rom. XV. 33 6 8i @eds ttjs
tt p'r/y T]t /Mfrd irdvTOJV vfxwy.

Rom. xvi. ao 6 Si &f6s ttjs flp^yrji
avyrplif/fi t6v XaToyay iini Toiis
v6Sas iifiSiv iy rdxct.

Test. Benj. 3 dvan&pTrfros brt\p
daePSiv diToOavftTat,

Test. Levi. 4 ol dvOpojnoi dniffTovyrtt
ini/xtyoOffiv iv rais dStKicus.

Test. Sym. 6 ovajs SiKaiwOSi dv^
T^y dfiapTias tuiv xpvx^v vfiivy.

Test. Neph. 8 Kal Svo ivToKat
flat' Hal (i firj yivcovTai kv Td^ti avTwy,
d(iapT(av irapixovaiv.

Test. Benj. 4 6 dyaOonotwy. . . t^
dyanwyTi tov &(dv awtpyti.

Test. Neph. 2 KaOcbsydp 6 Kt panels
oTSf rd aicevos, -noaov \capii, koI vphs
avTov (pepet nrjKoy, ovroj Kai 6 Kvpios
irpds o^oiaiaty tov irvfvfiaTos voifi rd

Test. Levi 3 vpoa<pepovat SI Kvpl^
bofx-^v evaiSias \oytK^y Kal dvai-
fiaKTOv irpoatpopiv.

Test. Benj. 4 ovtojs 6 dya$oiroiar


Test. Neph, a oCrcur ovSi iv okSt^i
Svv-qaeaOe not^arcu tpya <p<uT6t.

Test. Dan. 5 txwrts rhv 9thv T§t


Test. Aser. 7 koI iv ^avxi<t avr-
TpiPaiv Tijv Ht<paKt)v tov Sp&Koyrot
&' vSaTOS.

So tar we have had no direct citation from the Epistle by name.
Although Clement refers expressly to the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, and Ignatius may refer to an Epistle to the Ephesians,
neither they nor Polycarp, nor in fact any other writer, expressly
mentions Romans. It is with Marcion {c. 140) that we obtain
our first direct evidence. Romans was one of the ten Epistles
he included in his Aposlob'con, ascribing it directly to St. Paul.
Nor have we any reason to think that he originated the idea of
making a collection of the Pauline Epistles. The very fact, as
Zahn points out, that he gives the same short titles to the Epistles
that we find in our oldest MSS. {rrpui pw/iaiovs) implies that these
had formed part of a collection. Such a title would not be
sufficient unless the books were included in a collection which had
a distinguishing title of its own. In the Apostolicon of Marcion the
Epistles were arranged in the following order: (i) Gal., (2) i Cor.,
(3) 2 Cor., (4) Rom., (5) i Thess., (6) 2 Thess., (7) Laodic. =
Ephes., (8) Col., (9) Phil., (10) Philem. The origin of this


arrangement we cannot conjecture with any certainty; but it may

be noted that the Epistle placed first — the Galatians — is the one on
which Marcion primarily rested his case and in which the anti-
judaism of St. Paul is most prominent, while the four Epistles of the
Captivity are grouped together at the conclusion. Another interest-
ing point is the text of the Epistles used by Marcion. We need
not stop to discuss the question whether the charge against Marcion
of excising large portions of the Epistles is correct. That he did
so is undoubted. In the Romans particularly he omitted chaps,
i. 19-ii. I ; iii. 31-iv. 25; ix. 1-33; x. 5-xi. 32: xv.-xvi. Nor
again can we doubt that he omitted and altered short passages in
order to harmonize the teaching with his own. For instance, in
X. 2, 3 he seems to have read dyvoowrfs yap tov Qe6v. Both these
statements must be admitted. But two further questions remain ;
Can we in any case arrive at the text of the Epistles used by
Marcion, and has Marcion's text influenced the variations of our
MSS. ? An interesting reading from this point of view is the omis-
sion of TTpcoTov in i. 16 (see the notes, p. 24). Is this a case where
his reading has influenced our MSS., or does he preserve an early
variation or even the original text ?

We need not pursue the history of the Epistle further. From the
time of Irenaeus onwards we have full and complete citations in
all the Church writers. The Epistle is recognized as being by
St. Paul, is looked upon as canonical *, and is a groundwork of
Christian theology.

One more question remains to be discussed — its place in the
collection of St. Paul's Epistles. According to the Muratorian
fragment on the Canon the Epistles of St. Paul were early divided
into two groups, those to churches and those to individuals ; and
this division permanently influenced the arrangement in the Canon,
accounting of course incidentally for the varying place occupied by
the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is with the former group only that
we are concerned, and here we find that there is a very marked
variation in the order. Speaking roughly the earlier lists all place
the Epistle to the Romans at the end of the collection, whilst later
lists, as for example the Canon of the received text, place it
at the beginning.

For the earlier list our principal evidence is the Muratorian
fragment on the Canon : cum ipse beatus apostolus Paulus, sequens
prodecessoris sui lohamiis ordinem, notmist nominatim septem ecclesiis
scribal or dine tali: ad Corifithios [prima), ad Ephesios (secunda^, ad
Philippenses {tertia), ad Colossenses iquarta), ad Galatas {quinta), ad
Thessalonicenses [sexto), ad Romatios (septiina). Nor does this

' On Harnack's theory that the Pauline Epistles had at the close of the
•econd century less canonical authority than the Gospels, see Sanday, Bampton
LecttiTtt, pp. 30, 66.

§ 9.] INTEGRITY Ixxxv

Stand alone. The same place apparently was occupied by Romans
in the collection used by Tertullian, probably in that of Cyprian.
It is suggested that it influenced the order of Marcion, who per-
haps found in his copy of the Epistles Corinthians standing first,
while the position of Romans at the end may be implied in
a passage of Origen.

The later order (Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thess.) is
that of all writers from the fourth century onwards, and, with the
exception of changes caused by the insertion of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and of certain small variations which do not affect the
point under discussion, of all Greek MSS., and of all RISS. of
Versions. This widespread testimony implies an early date. But
the arrangement is clearly not traditional. It is roughly based on
the length of the Epistles, the Romans coming first as being the

The origin of the early order is by no means clear. Zahn's
conjecture, that it arose from the fact that the collection of Pauline
Epistles was first made at Corinth, is ingenious but not conclusive,
while Clem. Rom. 47, which he cites in support of his theory, will
hardly prove as much as he wishes \

To sum up briefly. During the first century the Epistle to the

Online LibraryW. (William) SandayA critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans → online text (page 10 of 71)