There are certaiidy passages wliich impl}' the pres- ence of a large number of Jewish converts to Christian- ity. The use of the second person in addressing the Jews (ch. ii and iii) is clearly not assumed merely for argumentative purposes, but applies to a portion at least of those into whose hands the letter would fall. The
constant appeals to the authority of " the law" may in many cases be accounted for by the Jewish education of the (ientile believers (so Jowett, ii, 22), but some- times they seem too direct and positive to admit of this explanation (Rom. iii, 19; vii, 1). In ch. vii Paul ap- pears to be addressing Jews, as those who, like himself, had once been under the dominion of the law, but had been delivered from it in Christ (see especially verses 4 and 6). And when in xi, 13 he says, " I am speaking to you — the Gentiles," this very limiting expression " the Gentiles" implies that the letter was addressed to not a few to whom the term would not apply.
Again, if we analyze the list of names in ch. xvi, and assume that this list approximately represents the pro- portion of Jew and Gentile in the Roman Church (an assimiption at least not improbable), we arrive at the same result. It is true that Marj', or rather IMariam (xvi, 6), is the only strictly Jewish name. But this fact is not worth the stress apparently laid on it by Mr. Jowett (ii, 27) ; for Aquila and Priscilla (ver. 3) were Jews (Acts xviii, 2, 26), and the Church which met in their house was probably of the same nation. Androni- cus and Junia (or Junias? ver. 7) are called Paul's kins- men. The same term is applied to Herodion (ver. 11). These persons, then, must have been Jews, whether " kinsmen" is taken in the wider or the more restricted sense. The name Apelles (ver. 10), though a heathen name also, was most commonly borne by Jews, as ap- pears from Horace {Sat. I, v, 100). If the Aristobulus of ver. 10 was one of the princes of the Herodian house, as seems probable, we have also in " the household of Aristobulus" several Jewish converts. Altogether it appears that a very large fraction of the Christian be- lievers mentioned in these salutations were -Jews, even supposing that the others, bearing Greek and Latin names, of whom we know nothing, were heathens.
Nor does the existence of a large Jewish element in the Roman Church present any difficulty. The captives carried to Rome by Pompey formed the nucleus of the Jewish population in the metropolis. See Rojie. Since that time they had largely increased. During the reign of Augustus we hear of above 8000 resident Jews at- taching themselves to a Jewish embassy which appealed to this emperor (.Josephus, Ant. xvii, 11, 1). The same emperor gave them a quarter beyond the Tiber, and al- lowed them the free exercise of their religion (Philo, Leg. ad Caiiim, p. 568 M.). About the time when Paul wrote, Seneca, speaking of the influence of Judaism, echoes the famous expression of Horace {Ep. ii, 1, 156) respecting the Greeks — "Victi victoribus leges dede- runt" (Seneca, in Augustine, I>e Civ. Dei,\i, 11). The bitter satire of Juvenal and indignant complaints of Tacitus of the spread of the infection through Roman society are well known (Tacitus, Ann. xv, 44; Juvenal, Sat. xiv, 96). These converts to Judaism were mostly women. Such proselytes formed at that period the point of coalescence for the conversion of the Gentiles.
Among the converts from Judaism to Christianity there existed in the days of Paul two parties. The congregated apostles had decreed, according to Acts xv, that the converts from paganism were not bound to keep the ritual lavvs of Moses. There were, however, many converts from Judaism who were disinclined to renounce the authority of the Mosaic law, and appealed erroneously to the authority of James (Gal. ii, 9; comp. Acts xxi, 25); they claimed also the authority of Peter in their favor. Such converts from Judaism, mentioned in the other epistles, who continued to observe the ritual laws of Moses were not prevalent in Rome: Baur, how- ever, supposes that this Ebionitic tendency prevailed at that time in all Christian congregations, Rome not ex- cepted. He thinks that the conv^erts from Judaism were then so numerous that all were compelled to sub- mit to the Judaizing opinions of the majority (comp. Baur, Ahhandluiif/ iihei- Zwech und Veranlassung des Romerhriefs, m the Tiibinger Zeitschrift.\9?)Q). How- ever, Neander has also shown that the Judaizing ten-
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 105 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
dency did not prevail in the Roman Church (com p. Neander, Pflunzmiy ckr chrisliicln'n Kirclie [3d ed.], p. 388). This opinion is confirmed by the circumstance that, according to ch. xvi, Paul hail many friends at Rome. Baur removes this objection only by declaring ch. xvi to be spurious. He appeals to ch. xiv in order to prove that there were Ebionitic Christians at Rome : it appears, however, that the persons mentioned in ch. xiv were by no means strictly Judaizing zealots, wish- ing to overrule the Church, but, on the contrary, some scrupulous converts from Judaism, upon whom the oth- ers looked down contemptuously. There were, indeed, some disagreements between the Christians in Rome. This is evident from xv, 6-9, and xi, 17, 18: these de- bates, however, were not of so obstinate a kind as among the Galatians ; otherwise the apostle could scarcely have praised the congregation at Rome as he does in ch. i, 8, \i, and xv, 14. From ch. xvi, 17-20 we infer that the Judaizers had endeavored to tind admittance, but with little success.