in the idea that though they were in Ephesus, say in 54 and 57 a.p., and again say in 66, they should have been in Rome in 58. Paul must have had his information about the Church in Rome from some one ; and nothing is so likely as that he had it from his old and intimate associates, Aquila and Priscilla, who had themselves a connection of old standing with the capital.
(c) There remains the case of Epznetus, who is described as the first fruits of Asia unto Christ. The received text has Achaia, but that is an error. One fails to see, however, why this Epznetus, though the first Christian convert in the province of Asia, should be bound to remain there always. There is no difficulty in supposing that he was at Rome, and that Paul, who knew him, was aware of the fact, and introduced his name to multiply for himself points of contact with the Roman Church.
These are the only definite matters of fact on which the theory of an Ephesian destination of the chapter has been based. They do not amount to anything against the weight of all the external evi- dence which makes them part of a letter to Rome. Nor is their weight increased by pointing out in the verses which follow the large number of persons with whom Paul had been in personal
relations — persons whom he calls ‘“‘my beloved,” ‘my fellow- labourers,” ‘‘my fellow-captives’’; “who bestowed much labour on us’; “his mother and mine” Paul’s life as a missionary
brought him into contact with persons in all the great towns of the East, and though he had not yet visited Rome,: it cannot be doubted that many of those with whom in the course of his twenty years’ ministry he had established such relations as are referred to here, had for one cause or other found their way to the great city. Paul would naturally, in preparing for his own visit, make all that he could of such points of attachment with the Roman Church as he had. It is, as Gifford points out, a very strong, indeed a conclusive argument for the Roman destination of the letter, that of the twenty-two persons named in verses 6-15, not one can be shown to have been at Ephesus; while (1) Urbanus, Rufus, Ampliatus, Julia and Junia are specifically Roman names, and (2) besides the first four of these names, “ten others, Stachys, Apelles, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Hermes, Hermas, Patrobas (or vatrobius), Philologus, Jutia, Nereus are found in the sepulchral inscriptions vi the Appian Way as the names of persons connected with ‘Cesar s household’ (nil. iv. 22),and contemporary with St. Maui”. tmence, in spite of the difficulty of Paul’s knowing so wiasuy peupie in a Church ne had never visited, and the equally great