The life and work of St. Paul

450 THE LIFE AND WORK OF ST. PAUL.
is not so much addressing a special body as purposely arguing out a funda-
mental problem, and treating it in an ideal and dramatic manner. To the
Koman Christians as a body he was avowedly a stranger, but he knew that
Jews and Gentiles, each with their special difficulties and prejudices, existed
side by side in every Church which he had visited, and he wished once for all
to lay down, not only for the Roman Christians, but for all who might read
his letter, the principles which were to guide their mutual relations. He is
stating the truths which could alone secure the perfect unity of that Church
of the future in which the distinctions between Jew and Greek were to be no
more. It was natural that before he visited a strange Church, and one so
important as the Church of Rome, he should desire plainly to state to them
the Gospel which he meant to preach. But surely it is hardly probable that
he would wish the benefits of this consummate effort to be confined to a single
Church. The hypothesis that several copies of the letter were made, and that.
with appropriate conclusions, it was sent in whole or in part to other Churches
beside that of Rome, is not only intrinsically reasonable, but also accounts for
some of the peculiar phenomena presented by the manuscripts, and especially
by the structure of the concluding chapters. 1
1 (i.) The mission of Phoebe to Ephesoa is more probable than a mission to Rome,
which was nearly three times more distant ; nor could Paul well have addressed a
strange Church in language of such urgent request on the subject of her visit (Rom. xvi.
1, 2). (ii.) It is strange that St. Paul should salute twenty-six people at a Church
which he had never visited, and address them in terms of peculiar intimacy and
affection, when he only salutes one or two, or none at all, in Churches which he had
founded, (iii.) Aquila and Priscilla were at Ephesus when St. Paul wrote 1 Cor. xvi.
19, and again at Ephesus when he wrote 2 Tim. iv. 19. It is strange to find them settled
at Rome with a Church in their house between these two dates. (" Quoi ! toute I'Eglise
d'Ephe'se s'ctait done donnS rendezvous in Rome?" Renan, St. Paul, Ixviii.) (iv.) How
is it that there are no salutations to Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia (2 Tim. iv. 21)7
(v.) How comes it that "Epsenetus, the first-fruits of Asia," is at Rome? and that so
many others are there who have in other places, of which, from the nature of the case,
Ephesus is the one which most prominently suggests itself toiled so much, and suffered
so much for Paul, and even shared his frequent prisons (xvi. 7, 9, 12, 13)? (vi.) If so
many were at Rome who deserve to be specially signalised as "beloved, "and "approved,"
and "elect," and "kinsmen." and "toilers," how is it that they all deserted him at the
hour of need (2 Tim. iv. 16) ? Was the Church at Rome BO mere a sand-cloud that all
these had been scattered from Rome ? or had they all been put to death in the persecution
of A. D. 64? How is it that not one of these exemplary twenty-six are among
the three Jewish friends who are alone faithful to him, even before the Neronian
persecutions began, and only a few years after this letter was despatched (Col. iv. 10, 11)?
(vii.) Again, how comes it that the severe yet fraternal reproachfulness of xvi. 17 20 is
BO unlike the apologetic and distant politeness of xv. 15 20? (viii.) How came Timothy
and St. Paul's other friends, whose salutations to Thessalonica or to Ephesus would be
natural, to send them so freely to distant and unvisited Rome? (ix.) Even if these
considerations were unimportant, how is it that they are so well supported by the apparently
different terminations of the Epistle at xv. 33, and xvi. 20 and 24, as well as
xvi. 27 ? Why is the conchiding doxology missing in F, G, and some MSS. mentioned by
Jerome ? Why is it placed after xiv. 23 in L, in most cursives, in Greek Ivectionaries, ir-
Chrysostom, Theodoret, &c. ? Why is it found twice in Codex A (xiv. 24 and xvi. 25) ?
Why did Mansion, with no apparent dogmatic reason, omit the two last chapters
altogether ? Why, lastly, does so important a manuscript as G, founded as it is on a
very ancient manuscript, omit the words iv 'Pupy in i. 7, 15 ? No fair critic will, I think,
assert that these difficulties are collectively unimportant ; and they find a perfectly
simple and adequate solution if, without accepting the entire details of Renan's theory,
we suppose with him (St. Pavl, Ixiii. Ixxv.) that the main body of the Epistle WHS tent