W. (William) Sanday.

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

. (page 9 of 71)
Online LibraryW. (William) SandayA critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans → online text (page 9 of 71)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

what that relation is. In an essay written in 1 871 (reprinted in Lightfoot
Biblical Essays, p. 321 ff.) Dr. Hoit states his opinion that F Greek is a direct
copy of G, F Latin a Vulgate text partly assimilated to the Greek and wi h
intrusive readings from the Latin of G. Later [Intfod. p. 150) he wiites
that F is 'as certainly in its Greek text a transcript of G as E of D : il not
it is an inferior copy of the same immediate exemplar.' This second alterna-
tive is the older view, adopted by Scrivener {jntrod. p. 181, ed. 3) and
maintained with detailed aiguments in two elaborate programmes 1/y
Dr. P. Corssen {Epp. Paulin. Codd. Aug. Boem. Clarom., 1687 and iS8y).

' Since the above was written all speculations on the subject of Euthalius
have been superseded by Prof. Armitage Robinson's admirable essay in Texts
and Studies, iii. 3. Both the text of Euthalius and that of the Codex Pa/ii-
phili are shewn to be as yet very uncertain quantities. Still it is probable that
the authorities in question are really connected, and that there are elements in
their text which may be traceable to Euthalius on the one hand and the Cae-
sarean library on the other.


We are not sure that the question can still be regarded as settled in this
sense, and that Dr. Hort's original view is not to be preferred. Dr. Corssen
admits that there are some phenomena which he cannot explain (1887, p. 13).
These would fall naturally into their place if F Gk. is a copy of G; and the
arguments on the other side do not seem to l)e decisive. In any case it
should be remembered that F Gk. and G Gk. are practically one witness and
not two.

Dr. Corssen reached a number of other interesting conclusions. Examining
the common element in D F G he showed that they were ultimately derived
from a single archetype (Z), and that this archetype was written per cola et
comtnata, or in clauses corresponding to the sense (sometimes called
aT'i\oi), as may be seen in the Palaeographical Society's facsimile of D
(ser. i. pi. 63, 64). Here again we have another coincidence of inde-
pendent workers, for in 1891 Dr. Rendel Harris carrying further a suggestion
of Rettig's had thrown out the opinion, that not only did the same system of
colometry lie behind Cod. A Evv. (the other half, as we remember, of
G Paul.) and D Evv. Act. (Cod. Bezae, which holds a like place in the
Gospel and Acts to D Paul.), but that it also extended to the other impor-
tant Old-Latin MS. k (Cod. Bobiensis), and even to the Cnretonian Syriac
— to which we suppose may now be added the Sinai palimpsest. If that
were so — and indeed without this additional evidence — Dr. Corssen probably
puts the limit too late when he says that such a MS. is not likely to have
been written before the time of St. Chrysostom, or 407 a. d.

Thus Dr. Corssen thinks that there arose early in the fifth century
a ' Graeco-Latin edition,' the Latin of which was more in agreement with
Victorinus Ambrosiaster and the Spanish Speculum. For the inter-connexion
of this group he adduces a striking instance from i Cor. xiii. i ; and he
argues that the locality in which it arose was more probably Italy than
Africa. As to the place of origin we are more inclined to agree with him
than as to the date, though the Speculum contains an African element. He
then points out that this Graeco-Latin edition has affinities with the Gothic
Version. The edition did not contain the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and the
Epistle to the Romans in it ended at Rom. xv. 14 (see § 9 below) ; it was
entirely without the doxology (Rom. xvi. 25-27),

Dr. Corssen thinks that this Graeco-Latin edition has undergone some
correction in D by comparison with Greek MSS. and therefore that it is in
part more correctly preserved in G, which however in its turn can only be
used for reconstructing it with caution.

Like all that Dr. Corssen writes this sketch is suggestive and likely to be
fruitful, though we cannot exj^ress our entire agreement with it. We only
regret that we cannot undertake here the systematic inquiry which certainly
ought to be made into the history of this group. The lines which it should
follow would be something of this kind, (.il It should reconstruct as far as
possible the common archetype of D and G. (ii) It should isolate the
peculiar element in both MSS. and distinguish between earlier and later
readings. The instances ia which the (jreek has been conformed to the Latin
will probably be found to be late and of little real importance, (iii^ The
peculiar and ancient readings in G g sliould be carefully collected and
studied. An opportunity might be found of testing more closely the hypo-
thesis propounded in § 9 of this Introduction, (iv) The relations of the
Gothic Version to the group should be determined as accurately as possible,
(v) The characteristics both of D and of the archetype of D G should be
compared with those of Cod. Bezae and the Old-Latin MSS. of the Gospela
and Acts.

(3) The Textual Criticism of Epistle to Romans. The textual
criticism of the PauHne Epistles generally is inferior in interest to

§ 7.] THE TEXT Ixxl

that of the Historical Books of the New Testament. When this is
said it is not meant that investigations such as those outlined above
are not full of attraction, and in their way full of promise. Any-
thing which throws new light on thehistory of the text will be found
in the end to throw new light on the history of Christianity. But
what is meant is that the textual phenomena are less marked, and
have a less distinctive and individual character.

This may be due to two causes, both of which have really been
at work. On the one hand, the latitude of variation was probably
never from the first so great ; and on the other hand the evidence
which has come down to us is inferior both in quantity and quality,
so that there are parts of the history — and those just the most
interesting parts — which we cannot reconstruct simply for want of
material. A conspicuous instance of both conditions is supplied
by the state of what is called the ' Western Text.' It is probable
that this text never diverged from the other branches so widely as
it does in the Gospels and Acts; and just for that section of it
which diverged most we have but little evidence. For the oldest
forms of this text we are reduced to the quotations in Tertullian
and Cyprian. We have nothing like the best of the Old-Latin MSS.
of the Gospels and Acts ; nothing like forms of the Syriac Versions
such as the Curetonian and Sinaitic ; nothing like the Dtaiessaron.

And yet when we look broadly at the variants to the Pauline
Epistles we observe the same main lines of distribution as in the
rest of the N.T. A glance at the apparatus criticus of the Epistle
to the Romans will show the tendency of the authorities to fall
into the groups DEFG; l^B; ^^ACLP. These really corre-
spond to Uke groups in the other Books : DEFG correspond
to the group which, in the nomenclature of Westcott and Hort, is
called ' Western ' ; l^ B appear (with other leading MSS. added) to
mark the line which they would call ' Neutral ' ; i«5 A C L P would
include, but would not be identical with, the group which they call
' Alexandrian.' The later uncials generally (with accessions every
now and then from the older ranks) would constitute the family
which they designate as 'Syrian,' and which others have called
' Antiochene,' ' Byzantine,' ' Constantinopolitan,' or ' Ecclesiastical.'

Exception is taken to some of these titles, especially to the term
* Western,' which is only retained because of its long-established
use, and no doubt gives but a very imperfect geographical descrip-
tion of the facts. It might be proposed to substitute names
suggested in most cases by the leading MS. of the group, but
generalized so as to cover other authorities as well. For instance,
we might speak of the 8-text ( — ' Western'), the P-text (= ' Neutral'),
the o-text ( = * Alexandrian '), and the e-text or cr-text (=' Ecclesi-
astical 'or 'Syrian'). Such terms would beg no questions; they
would simply describe facts. It would be an advantage that the


same term '8-text' would be equally suggested by the leading MS.
in the Gospels and Acts, and in the Pauline Epistles ; the term
' P-text,' while suggested by B, would carry with it no assumption
of superiority ; ' o-text ' would recall equally ' Alexandrian ' and
' Codcx Alexandrinus ' ; and * e-text ' or ' cr-text ' would not imply
any inherent inferiority, but would only describe the undoubted
facts, either that the text in question was that generally accepted by
the Church throughout the Middle Ages, or that in its oldest form
it can be traced definitely to the region of Antioch and northern
Syria. It is certain that this text (alike for Gospels, Acts, and
Epistles) appears in the fourth century in this region, and spread
from it ; while as to the debated point of its previous history nothing
would be either affirmed or denied.

If some stich nomenclature as this were adopted « further step might be

taken by distinguishing the earlier and later stages of the same text as 8*,
8^ &c., o-*, a'^, &c. It would also have to be noted that although in the
vast majority of cases the group would include the MS. from which it
took its name, still in some instances it would not include it, and it might
even be ranged on the opposite side. This would occur most often with
the a-text and A, but it would occur also occasionally with the P-text and
B (as conspicuously in Rom. xi. 6).

Such being the broad outlines of the distribution of authorities on the
Epistle to the Romans, we ask, Wliat are its distinctive and individual
features ? These are for the most part shared with the rest of the Pauline
Epistles. One of the advantages which most of the other Epistles possess.
Romans is without : none of the extant fragments of Cod. H belong to it.
This deprives us of one important criterion ; but conclusions obtained for
the other Ejiistles may be applied to this. For instance, tlie student will
observe carefully the readings of N" and Arm. Sufficient note has unfor-
tunately not been taken of them in the commentary, as the clue was not in
the writer's hands when it was written. In this respect the reader must be
asked to supplement it. He should of course apply the new test with
caution, and judge each case on its merits : only careful use can show to what
extent it is valid. When we consider tlie mixed origin of nearly all ancient
texts, sweeping propositions and absolute rules are seen to be out of

The specific characteristics of the textual apparatus of Romans may be
said to be these : (i) the general inferiority in boldness and originality of the
8- (or Western) text ; (ii i the fact that there is a distinct Western element in
B, «vhich tiierefore when it is combined with authoiities of the S- or Western
type i$ diminished in value; (iii) the consequent rise in importance of the
group N AC ; (iv) the existence of a few scnttered readings either of B alone
or of B in combinati'n with one or two other authorities which have con-
siderable intrinsic probability and may be right.

We proceed to say a few words on each of these heads.

(i) The fust must be taken with the reservations noted above. The
Western or 8-text has not it is true the bold and interesting variations wliich
are found in the Gospels and Acts. It has none of the striking inter-
polations which in those Books often bring in ancient and v.nlunhle matter.
That may be due mainly to the fact that the interpolations in question are
for the most part historical, and therefore would naturally be looked for in
the Historical Books. In Ep to Romans the more important 8-variantS
are not interpo'ations but omissions (as e.g. in the Gospel of St Lake). Still



these variants preserve some of the freedom of correction and paraphrase to
which we are accustomed elsewhere.

E.g. iii. 9 T« npoKari-xpixiv ireptaffoy ; D* G, Chrj'S. Orig.-lat. al. : ti ovv ;

iv. 19 01) KaTd'uTjmv DEFG, &c Orig.-lat. Epiph. Ambrstr. a/.:

KaT€v6r](Tev N A B C a/.
T. 14 trrl Tovs ajjinpTijuayrai 62, 63, 67**, Orig.-lat. Codd. Lat. ap.

Atig., Ambrstr. : kiii tovj p.'i] aixTprriaai'Tas rd.
vii. 6 Tou Qavarov DEFG, Codd. ap. Oiig.-lat. al. : u.-nodav6vri% rel.
xii. II T^ Kaip^ SovXevopTts D* ¥ G, Codd. Lat. ap. Hieron. ap,
Orig.-lat Ambrstr. : to) 'Kvp'iw SovXivoi'Tti rel.
13 Tch pviiais ruv ayiaiv D* F G, Codd. ap. Thecd. Mops. ap.
" Orig.-lat. Hil. Ambrstr. al.: rah xpi'ia.i% rojv ayioov rel. | These

two readings were perhaps due in the first instance to accidental
errors of transcription.]
«T. 13 TT\T]po(popT]aai B F G : w\r)p&ffai rel.
33 TToWdKis B D E F G : to, rroWa rel.
31 S(upo(popia B D* F G, Ambrstr. : SiaKovia rel.
The most interesting aspect of this branch of the text is the history of its
antecedents as represented by the common archetype of D G, and even more
by the peculiar element in G. Tiie most prominent of these readings are
discussed below in § 9, but a still further investigation of them in connexion
with allied phenomena in other Epistles is desirable.

(ii) It will have been seen that in the last three readings just given B joins
with the unmistakably Western authorities. And this plienomenon is in
point of fact frequently repeated. We have it also in the omission of
•j-TrpwToi' i. 16; om. yap iii. 2 ; om. ttj rriarH v. 2 ; *ins. fj.iv vi. 21 ; 5id -rd
ivoiKow aiiTov Tlvevi^a viii. 1 1 (where however there is a great mass of otlu r
authorities); *om. 'iTjaovs and *om. Ik veicpwv viii. 34; 17 8ia6i)icr) ix. 4; ins.
ovv ix. 19; *oTi after vopov and *favTa. ins. after noi-qaas x. 5 ; ev [toi's] x.
20 ; *om. yap xiv. 5 ; om. cvv, (XTroSwcrej, fom. tw Qew xiv. 12 ; *add ^ aicav-
SaXi^trai rj ucrBevtt xiv. 21 ; vfids xv. 7; t^i' [Kavx'qcrtv] xv. 17.

It is perhaps significant that in all the instances marked with * the group
is joined by N^. It may be through a copy related to the ' Codex Pam-
phili ' that these readings came into R We also note that the latest and
worst of all the readings found in B, the long addition in xi. 6 ei 5e l^ tpywv
ovatTt (om. (OTi B) X"''"' *'^^^ ''^ epyov ovKert iarl x^Pi-^ i^l^ Bj epyov al.)
is shared by B with N" L. In the instances marked with f, and in xv. 1 3
vkrjpoipoprjaai, B agrees not with D but with G ; but en the other hand in
viii. 34 (om. 'lijaovs) and in xv. 7 it agrees with D against G ; so that the
resemblance to the peculiar element in the latter MS. does not stand out
quite clearly. In the other instances both D and G are represented.

(iii) When Bthus poes over to the Western or S-group the main support
of the alternative reading is naturally thrown upon N A C. This is a group
which outside the Gospels and Acts and especially in Past. Epp. Heb. and
Apoc. (with or without other support) has not seldom preserved the right
reading. It becomes in fact the main group wherever B is not extant. Tlie
principal difficulty — and it is one of the chief of the not very numerous
textual difficulties in Romans — is to determine whether these AISS. really
retain the original text or whether their reading is one of the finer Alexan-
drian corrections. This ambiguity besets us {e.g.) in tlie very complex
attestation of viii. II. The combination is strengthened where i< A are
joined by the Westerns as in iii. 28. In this instance, as in a few others,
they are opposed by BC, a pair which do not carry quite as much weight
in the Epistles as they would in the Gospels.

(iv) It may appear paradoxical, but the value of B seems to ri-^^e wlien
it is deserted by all ot nearly all other uncials. Appearances may ba


deceptive, but there is not a little reason for thinking that the following
readings belong to the soundest innermost kernel of the MS.

iv. I om. €vpT)K(vai.

V. 6 (t ye.

▼ii- 25 x°/"* '^V ®^V-

Tiii. 34 t yap ;3Ae'ir€t, t/s f\m^ti ;

X. 9 r6 ^rjp,a . . . oTi Kvpios 'Ijjffovt,

xiv. 13 om. -npuCfcnuna . . . ij.

XV. 19 TlvfiifiaTos without addition.

As all these readings have been discussed more or less fnlly in the com-
mentary, they need only be referred to here. Two more readings present
considerable attractions.

ix. 23 om. icaL

xvi. 27 om. ^.

They are however open to some suspicion of being corrections to ease the
construction. The question is whether or not they are valid exceptions to
the rule that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. Such exceptions
there undoubtedly are ; and it is at least a tenable view that these are
among them.

Other singular, or subsingular, readings of B will be found in xv, 4, 13,
y>, 3a. But these are less attractive and less important

§ 8. Literary History.

The literary history of the Epistle to the Romans begins earh'er
than that of any other book of the N.T. Not only is it clearly
and distinctly quoted in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, but
even within ihe N.T. canon there are very close resemblances both
in thought and language between it and at least three other books ;
these resemblances we must first consider.

We shall begin with the first Epistle of St Peter. In the
following table the passages in which there is a similarity between
the two Epistles are compared :

Rom. ix. 25 KoKiaoj riiv oi \a6r I Peter ii. 10 0/ irori ov Knot, vvv

Itov Kauv fiov, Kat TJji' ovx ^yain]- 82 Kadi Qeov, ol oiiK ^Ketj/iiyoi, vvv
ftevTjv r/yamj/xivTiv. di iXcqdivTei.

Rom. ix. 32, 33 Trpoff^Afo^tai' T^ 1 Peter ii. 6-8 'iSoiJ, riOrjui tr

X.lOa> rov TrpoffKu/xiiaTOi, KaOus Siwv \iOov aKpoyuvtaiov iK\(KT6v,
ftypaiTTai, 'I5ov, tIOtj/jii tv 'Siwv IvrifioV ical 6 martvoiv In' avr^
XiOvv V poa HO p-naros xal vir- ov fi^i Karaiax^^'^V • • • ovroi
pav ofcavSaKov xal o viartvcov iyevrjOT} (h K((paKr)v yojvias, * ical
iv' avT^ ov Karaiaxvvd^- kidoi vpoaKSufxaTos Kai virpa
OfTat. ffKav5d\ov, ot vpoa K6vTovai Tf

X6yq> aTTdOovvTfS, (Is t teal It«-

Rom. xii. I vapaaTfjffai tA cifnara i Peter ii. 5 avtviyicai TTVfv/juiTuccit

ifiQv Ovaiav ^ajaav, dyiav, ivapta- Svffiat tvwpoaStHTovt 0€^ Sii. 'L
Tov T(f 0*9), Tijv \oyiieijv Karptiav Xp.

Rom. xii. a /x^ (7v«rx*/A'aTi- i Peter L 14 /i^ ffv^x^/^^'C^

^eaOt rqi ulu)vi TovT<fi. fitvoi rah irp6Tipov iv ry iyvoiif vitSf





The following passages seem to be modelled on St. Paul's
thoughts and words :

Rora. xii. 3 dAXd <ppovtiv tit ri

0aj<ppov(lv . . .

6 ixoyres SI x'^P'*'' A* "''■<* tiOLTct
Til" X"/'"' ''^^ toQuaav fifiTv 5«(i-
4>o/xz . . . ctre hiaitoviav, iv rp
SiaKoviif . . .

3 iitaffTq) d>s 6 9e6s iixipiat
furpov iriaTfus.

Cf. also Rom. xiii. 11-14; 8-10;
xii. 9, 13.

Rom. xii. 9 ij 070*17 &pvir6-
Kpiros ... 10 r^ <pi\aS(\<pi<f
tis dW'^Xovs <pt\6aTopyou

Rom. xii. 16 rb airb (U a\\^\ovi
tppovovvTis' f.iij TO. vtp7]\ai <ppo-
vovrTfy, dWA roh ravfivoTs
cvvanayofifvoi. fifj yiveaOe (ppovi/xoi
vap' (avTois.

17 t^T]Sevl KaKov avrl kukov
AnoSiSovres' ■npovoovjJ.tvoi Ka\ci
ivuniov TrdvTCuv dvOpuircov

18 (i Svvarov, t6 e^ vfxZu, ftercL
wivTojv dvOpuinouv (iprjvevovres.

Cf. also vv. 9, 14.

Rom. xiii. i iraaa if/vx^l i^ovalan
iwfpexovaais viroTaaaiaOo)'
oil yap iariv i^ovffia ei fifj iitt^ Qfov,
al Si ovaai vtt^ &fov nTayixivai
*laiv . . .

3 01 yd.p dpxovTd ovK dfft <p60os
Ty dyaO^ fpyVf "^^^ ^o) KaKqi . . .

4 0€ov yap Sidicovos kariv, eic-
iiKos fls opyrjv T9) t6 KaKor vpda-
0OVT1 . . .

7 dnoSore iraffi rait 6<p(i\if r^
riv (popov rbv (pupov, T^ rd rtKos
rd Ti\os, T^ Tou <p6^ov t^v <p6^0Vf

Ty T-^V TipLJJV T^f TlflTJV.

Although equal stress cannot be laid on all these passages the
resemblance is too great and too constant to be merely acci-
dental. In I Pet. ii. 6 we have a quotation from the O.T. with
the same variations from the LXX that we find in Rom, ix. 32
(see the note). Not only do we find the same thoughts, such as
the metaphorical use of the idea of sacrifice (l\om. xii. i ; i Pet.
ii. 5), and the same rare words, such as avcrxnti-fiT^CfcrBni, uvvno-
KpiToSf but in one passage (Rom. xiii. 1-7; i Pet. ii. 13-17) we

I Peter iv. 7-1 1 vdfron' Si r6 t^\oi
^yyiKC awippovfiaaTf ovv koI vrf-
if/are (h irpoaevxdi' irpb TrdvTcoi' Tr)v
fis iavTols dyaiTTjv fKTevTJ 6x<"''"*s»
Sti dydnri KoXiinTU KXijOoi afxapriuiy
<f>i\6^(voi fli dKKrjKovs, dvev yoyyv-
ff/xov' fKaarot nadwi (\ape x°P«<'*
l*a, (1% iavTovs avTO SiaKovovvres,
&S KaXol oIkovo/ioi irotKlKrji x*^?"'*'!
ecoC* ef Tts Xa\(t, d/s kuyia ©foC' tl
Tit Staicovft, uis «£ Iffx^os ^s x°Piy^^
6 BfSs.

I Peter i. aa t<Jj tf/vxAs v/juov fjyvi-
KSrts . . , (Is ((>i\aSe\(piav dvvv6-
KpiTOv (K KapSias dKKriKovs dyair^
aart iKTtvws,

I Peter iii. 8, 9 rb S\ rtXoi, nivrtt
6ft6<ppovfs, av/xiraOeis, <pt\d5e\(poi,
ivairXayxfoi, raTT(iv6(ppoves, fi^
dTToSiSovTfS Kaicdv dvrl xaKov
Ij \oi?>opiav dvTt \ot5opias, TovvavTiov
S\ fvXoyovvres, oti (h tovto «kAjj-
0r]Ti tva evKoyiav KXijpoyoixTjaijTe . . .

II (KKKivdro) Se dird KaKov, Koi
voir]ffdra> dyaOoV ^TjTrjaaTM flpr]VT)V
Koi dtoj^droj avr^v.

1 Peter ii. 13-17 viroriyrjTt ■n&aig
AvOpuirivji KTiffei Sid rbv Kvpiov,
trrt ^aai\(i, wy vrr( pexovTt, eiTf
^yefjioaiVj ws Sj' airov TK^-nopiivois us
iKSiKTja IV KaKoitoiwv iiraLVov S\
iyadoiiomv on ovtojs iarl to OeXrjua
Tov @eov . . . Tiavras Ti/iTjffaTf rrjV
d5(\<p6Tr]Ta dyairdTC t^v Qedv


have what must be accepted as conclusive evidence, the same ideas
occurring in the same order. Nor can there be any doubt that of
the two the Epistle to the Romans is the earher. St. Paul works
out a thesis clearly and logically ; St. Peter gives a series of
maxims for which he is largely indebted to St. Paul. For example,
in Rom. xiii. 7 we have a broad general principle laid down,
St. Peter, clearly influenced by the phraseology of that passage,
merely gives three rules of conduct. In St. Paul the language
and ideas come out of the sequence of thought; in St. Peter
they are adopted because they had already been used for the same

This relation between the two Epistles is supported by other
independent evidence. The same relation which prevails between
the First Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistle to the Romans is also
found to exist between it and the Epistle to the Ephesians, and
the same hypothesis harmonizes best with the facts in that case
also. The three Epistles are all connected wilh Rome : one of
them being written to the city, the other two in all probability
being written from it. We cannot perhaps be quite certain as
to the date of i Peter, but it must be earlier than the ApostoHc
Fathers who quote it ; while it in its turn quotes as we see at least
two Epistles of St. Paul and these the most important. We may
notice that these conclusions harmonize as far as they go with the
view taken in § 3, that St. Peter was not the founder of the Roman
Church and had not visited it when the Epistle to the Romans was
written. In early church history arguments are rarely conclusive ;
and the even j^artial coincidence of different lines of investigation
adds greatly to the strength of each.

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews again was probably
indebted to the Romans, the resemblance between Rom. iv. 17
and Heb. xi. 1 1 is very close and has been brought out in the
notes, while in Rom. xii. 19, Heb. x. 30, we have the same
passage of Deuteronomy quoted with tlie same marked diver-
gences from the text of the LXX. This is not in itself conclusive
evidence; there may have been an earlier form of the version
current, in fact there are strong grounds for thinking so; but the
hypothesis that the author of the Hebrews used the Romans is
certainly the simplest. We again notice that the Hebrews is
a book closely connected with the Roman Church, as is proved by
its early use in that Church, and if it were, as is possible, written
from Rome or It.ily its indebtedness to this Epistle would be
accounted for. The two passages referred to are quoted below;
and, although no other passages resemble one another sufficiently
Lo be quoted, vet it is quite conceivable that many other of the
worcK and phras s in the Hebrews which are Pauline in character
ma) liave been derived from an accjuaintance with this Epistle.




The passages referred to are the following :

Rom. iv. 17-21 KorivavTi oZ ktrU


Online LibraryW. (William) SandayA critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans → online text (page 9 of 71)