Hegesippus, ap. Eus. IIE XV. xxii.) knows that the Roman Church claims the two apostles as iti founders. Tertullian (Pne-inr. 3(5) speaks of tnn two apostles as having ' poured into that Church all their doctrine along with tlieir blood.' His Roman contemporary, Caius, knows the rpiirata of the two apostles on the Vatican and by the Appian Way. We must notice, lastly, the inter- esting statement in the Prcedicalio Pauli, quoted by pseudo.Cyprian (De rcbnpt., Hartel, vol. iii. p. 90), that after long separation the two apostles met and suH'ered together in Rome. It is a very improbable suggestion of Lijisius, that this stream of tradition owes its origin to the attenii)t to harmonize the relations of the two apostles, and that it presupposes the Clementine tradition in which the anti - Pauline tradition of Simon' Magus at Rome was incorporated. This latter tradition is closely connected with the tradition which ascribes to St. Peter a special connexion with the Roman Church, i.e. as distinct from St. Paul. Whether it is possible to separate them, so as to exhibit the storv of St. Peter's twenty- five years' episcopate, witliout any dependence on the legend which brings Simon Magus to Rome (which in turn seems wholly due to a well-known mistake of Justin, see Diet. Chr. Biog. art. 'Simon Magus'), is a most intricate question. An inade. quale discu-ssion of it would be worthless, an ade- quate discussion would transgress the proportions of this article. Suffice it, then, to say that the question of importance for our purpose is whether St. Peter can be credibly held to have come to Rome as early as the reign of Claudius (41-54). There are two possible sources for this supposition. The one is the statement of Justin, that Simon came to Rome in this reign. Hut, apart from tlie mistake upon which Justin founded this state- ment, neither Justin, nor Irenieus, nor Tertullian after him, know anything of the Roman conflict of Simon with St. Peter. The other source is the ide.a that St. Peter, on leaving Jerusalem (Ac 12"), came to Rome shortly before the death of Herod Agrippa I. (i.e. about A.D. 42); the Lord having (as inferred from that text) commanded the apostles to remain twelve years in Jeru.salein. Neither of these alternatives proves any founda- tion in fact for so early a visit of St. Peter to Rome.
On the whole, we conclude that the Petro-Pauline tradition is the only one which goes back to the 1st cent., that it is presupposed by the tradition of the Roman conllict between St. Peter and Simon, and liy the tradition of St. Peter's twenty- five years' episcopate, and that its foundation in fact IS the martyrdom of both apostles at Rome. This was the ' foundation 'of the Roman Church in the sense in which the 'foundation-stone' of a building is often laid after the actual foundations have been long in progress. The two apostles 'consolidated the Church with their blood.' There is therefore no primitive tradition which brings St. Peter to Rome before St. Paul, or any long time before the usually accepted date of his martyrdom. (See Lipsias, Apolcr. Apostdqesrh. vol. ii. , and Quellen di'r riiin. Pi'trussafjc; Erbes, 'Todestagc der Apostel Paul, und Pet.' in Texteund Untersiirh. xix. 1 ; Lightfoot, St. Clement, vol. ii. p. 49011'. ; the very careful and fair discussion in Sanday- Headlam, Intr. § 3 ; and Chase in art. Petkk in vol. iii. of the present work).
4. Compo.titiun of the liodii addrcised by St. Paul. — We must a-ssume as the basis of discussion th.'it St. Paul was not wholly ignorant of the composi- tion and general state of the Church to wliicli ho was writing. The names and data of ch. 16, which we believe to be an original part of the Epistle (see below, § viii. ), and the sureness of touch which
298 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
marks all St. Paul's references to the readers of this Epistle, are enough to carry us thus far. The Epistle, then, is certainly meant for readers of Gentile oriyin. St. Paul counts the Romans, as such, as Gentiles ; see !"■ iv oU iare Kal ufius, v." if Tois XoiTTois Idfeaif, cf. IS'^"'. The readers are expressly described as Gentiles 11'""^^, especially viiif \iyu Toif IBviaw, while he speaks of the Jews in the third person U'"- ir^^-as-si. These passages are quite conclusive, and would justify a verdict if taken alone.
But there are other passages which show with equal clearness that St. Paul is contemplating reade-i Jewish in their religiovs education and ideas. (1) The general ar''ument of tlie Epistle, levelling down the Jew, both uniler law and under grace, to the footing of the Gentile, is more intel- ligible as addressed to Christians of Jewish habits of thought. The careful discussion of Abraham's righteousness suggests a similar origin. Nor, be it observed, is there any suggestion of anti-Pauline agitators in the Roman Church to account for this line of argument (as in Galatians). Add to this the assumption of knowledge (o'"^-) as to Adam and his heritage of death, the pains taken {3" 6') to rebut the imputation of antinomianism, and to show (ch. 11) that the rejection of Israel may be but the necessary step to their eventual accep- tance. (2) The dialectical form in which Jewish difticulties are carefully faced, and parado.xes espe- cially abhorrent to the Jewish mind repelled with /XT) -yivoiTo (3'- ' 4' V- " 9''- »• 11'- ", cf. Gal 2") ; the Trpoexl>f-(Sa of 3' (cf. 4', and 7°- ' in conjunction with the expansion, w.'-^, also 9'"). (3) Here we must emphasize the express statement 7''" that the readers had lived under the Law, and in ' old- ness of letter,' and that by the deatli of Christ they had been discharged from their allcL'iance to the Law. This passage was regarded by Alangold (dcr B.Brief u. s. gesch. Voraussetzungen, 1884) as the immovable corner-stone of the Jewisli-Christian cliaracter of the Roman Churcli. It seems to ex- plain St. Paul's readiness throughout to make use of Jeivish concessions (2="- 3-'- "»• -'"• 4'"- 6'™-) and his regard for objections natural to a Jewish mind.