* A good example of the influence of terms (though in this case the idea behind them is rejected, not accepted) may be found in the diftioult 'height' and 'depth' of Ro S™. Lietz- mann points out thiit iJtpuifjLa and fia.60^ are technical astrological expressions for the ascension and declination of a star. Re- membering how fate and the stars were connected in the re- ligious ideas of the day, we may develop this hint and sug- gest tiiat St. Paul implies that among the forces conquered by Christ is that tyranny of fate, astrologically conceived, w'hich must so often have made life a burden. Similarly, the 'powers' (Swdfieis) which immediately precede (separated, be it noted, from the angels) may be the supposed influencea of the stars.
t See Sanday-Ueadlam, p. Iviii, for list of words peculiar to the four.
; Clemen, however, with a special chronology of his own, puts it earlier (Clironologie der paulinischen Briefe, Halle, 1893).
KOxMA^fS, EPISTLK TO THE
KUMK
-tn
the 'seed' is interpreted in the natural way of Abraham's descendants in ;,'encral. A comparison of the two Epistles by no means excludes the possibility of some considerable interval between them.
(b) Other books of the NT.—(\) The Epistle of St. James. — Here again we have certain resem- blances in language (Sanday-Headlam, p. Ixxvii), accompanied, however, by an apiiareiit conliadic- tion in teaching, lioth quote Gn 1.5'' (' Ahrahani believed Uod,' etc. ; Ja 2-^ Ko 4^ etc.), but draw from it opposite conclusions, St. James arguing that Abraham was justilied by works and not by faith. There are really two distinct questions, (i.) Is there any direct literary relation between the two 1 The date of James is most uncertain ; it may be one of the earliest or one of the latest of tlie books of the NT, and, therefore, if there is indebtedness, it would be very difficult to say which of the two was the borrower. But in fact the general parallels in language are not sutticient to prove that either had the other's work before him. They are mostly conimon]ilaces of Jewish and Christian teaching, and, if any furtlier explanation were required, it might — on the supposition of the apostolic author- ship of James — be found in personal intercourse between the two writers. The common quotation seems at first sight more signilicant, but it ceases to be so when we remember that this text was frequently used in Jewisli discussions (Lightfoot, Gnlatians^, p. 158 li'. ; Sanday-Headlam, p. 104). Of course if St. James be placed late the case is then somewhat altered, and it becomes possible that the writer knew Romans and was attempting to answer either it or exaggerated deductions drawn from St. Paul's teaching.
Apart, however, from the question whether either writer is intending to controvert the other or not, it is important to ask (ii.) how far the two points of view are really e.xclusive. It at once becomes obvious when we look below the surface that the two mean dift'erent things by faith.* St. Paul with his conception of faith could never have said tliat the devils believe and tremble. St. James is on the level of the plain matter-of-fact man, in- sisting on conduct, not on profe.ssion. St. Paul goes deeper down to the springs of conduct. The two do represent diti'erent points of view, but they are not necessarily contradictory. St. Paul would prob- ably have accepted all that St. James said, grant- ing his use of the terms, but wouhl have argued that it did not go to the root of the matter. St. James would probably have been quite ready to agree with St. Paul, wlien he had explaineil what he meant, with the mental reservation that he was not quite sure that he understood him. There is certainly room for both within the Church's canon.
(2) 1 Peter. — Here the literary relationship is far stronger and indeed almost indisputable. The parallel passages may be seen in Sanday-Headlam, p. Ixxiv il'. Their conclusion is as follows : ' Al- though equal stress cannot be laid on all these passages the resemblance is too great and too con- stant to be merely accidental. In 1 P 2" we have a quotation from the O.T. with the .same variations from the LXX that we lind in Ko 9^^. Not only do we lind the same thoughts, such as the meta- phorical use of the idea of sacrifice (Ro 12', 1 P 2''), and the same rare words, such as (riwx')M"'''S'f<''^«'i o>'K7ro/cpiros,t but in one passage (Ro 13'"', 1 P 2'^"") we have what must be accepted as conclusive evi- dence, the same ideas occurring in the same order.' And their verdict that 1 Peter is the borrower must be accepted on every ground. We are not here concerned with the possible bearing of this fact on
* See Sanday-Headlam, p. 102 fT. t See Ro 122, i p in ; Ro 129, i p iffl VOL. II. — 27
the question of the authorship of that Episth- ; we need only point out that it makes it probably the earliest external witness to the existence of Romans.
(3) It may be added that there are fairly close resemblances between Ro 4""'-' and He n''- '-'•'», and between Ro 12'" and He 10^'", where Dt 32:« is quoted with the same variations from the LXX. .ludi'-"' is also of the same type as the doxology of Ro lG-="- ; on this see § 2 (h).