B52^65 
 
 ^^^>^ 
 
 
 K 
 
 OMA' 
 
 ECTED 
 
'^^ 
 
 %^'i 
 
 of Prin 
 
 ""^tn 
 
 "V 
 
 V 19, T^QI 
 
 Division .^ 5?_(^^^ 
 
 No, ._ , 
 
I 
 
ROMANS DISSECTED 
 
ROMANS DISSECTED 
 
 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE 
 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 
 
 r E. D. MCKEALSHAM (pseucl. 
 
 C, M. Meckel 
 
 EDINBURGH 
 T. & T. CLARK 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
 
 1891 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 Sketch of previous attempts to analyse the Epistle. F, C. 
 Baur. "Weakness of his position, Bruno Bauer. C. H. "Weisse. 
 A. Piei-son. A. D. Loman. R. Steck. Logical result of the Tiibingen 
 criticism. The fundamental assumptions of a sound criticism. 
 These themselves practically make the genuineness of the Pauline 
 Epistles inadmissible. But further proof required by some. The 
 method here to be pursued. pp. 1—9. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 THE DOCTRINAL ARGUMENT. 
 
 A critical analysis of the Epistle discloses the work of four 
 different authors, whom we call G^, G-, JC, and CI. Charac- 
 teristics of the several authors. (1) G^ makes salvation depend 
 on obedience to the law. He wrote i. 18 — ii. 29, except ii. 16. 
 Also xii. 9 — xiii. 13. Reasons for this analysis. Finally, xvi. 
 17—20. Question about verse 18. Resemblance between G* and 
 the Epistle of James. (2) G^ makes salvation depend on faith in 
 God. Begins at iii. 1. Contrast between him and G^ Why iii. 
 21 — 20 must be assigned to JC. G- emphasises the divine so- 
 vereignty. The section iii, 27 — iv. 24. Question about iv. 24. 
 
Connection of this section witla vii. 7 — 24, and of this with ix. 
 6—33, and oh. xi. — (3) JC makes faith in Chiisfs vicarious 
 death the prominent thing. He WTote i. 1 — 17. Eeasons for 
 assigning ii. 16 to him. The sections iii. 21—26, iv. 25 — v. 21, 
 and ix. 1 — 5. Reasons for assigning ch. x. to JC. The final 
 sections, xv, 8—13 and xvi. 21—27. (4) CJ. emphasises the doc- 
 trine that the Christian life is a life in the Spirit, union with 
 Christ, and death to sin. Connection of vi. 2 sqq. with the 
 foregoing. Difference between CJ and JC as to righteousness, 
 justification, and faith. Ch. vi. — vii. 6 continued in ch, viii. The 
 hoi-tatory part, xii. 1 — 8, xiii. 14 — xv. 7. The concluding sec- 
 tion, XV. 14—33. Conclusion. pp. 10—39. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT. 
 
 (1) The two forms "Jesus Christ" and "Christ Jesus". Coin- 
 cidence of this difference with doctrinal differences. Possible 
 reason for the diverse forms. (2) The ethical sense of oa-qi found 
 only in CJ. Apparent exception. The corresponding sense of 
 Tivivfia. (3) Detailed linguistic analysis of the Epistle and com- 
 parison of the four- writers. The result compared with a similar 
 analysis of Gen. i. — xii. 5. Particular verbal differences in the 
 four authors. Differences of style. — Volter's analysis of the 
 Epistle. Comparison of the general result with that of Penta- 
 teuchal analysis. The question of chronological order in the latter. 
 The critics' assumption of the genuineness of certam 0. T. boots. 
 Probability that all are spurious. Objections answered. 
 
 pp. 40—71. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 
 
 The alleged conflict between facts and theories. What are 
 the historical arguments? The value of tradition. It must be 
 subjected to criticism. The evidence respecting our Epistle. Our 
 
theory relieves us of many difficulties besetting the traditional 
 view, (1) May not one of the four writers have been Paul? If 
 any one, it must have been G^ Reasons for a negative con- 
 clusion. (2) The allegations that there has never been any doubt 
 of the Epistle's genuineness, and that it bears in itself and in its 
 relation to the Acts evidences of being Pauline. Reply. Fa- 
 cility of ancient writers in producing and introducing forgeries. 
 The indecisiveness of historical testimony. Probable date of the 
 several parts of the Epistle. Epistle of Clement, etc. (3) Objec- 
 tion that forgeries could not so soon have got cuiTency. Reply. 
 Quotation from Steck. Ease of introducing pseudepigraphical 
 writings. The objection, that it is improbable that no genuine 
 writings of the early Christians are extant, answered. 
 
 pp. 72—93. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. pp. 94, 95. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY RE^^IARKS. 
 
 OiNCE F. C. Baiir's critique of the Pauline. 
 Epistles, the result of which was to leave only the 
 tirst four of them as genuine, the most advanced 
 criticism has for the most part been content to 
 accept this conclusion as final, while some of Baur's 
 followers have even beaten a retreat, and conceded 
 the o-einiineness of more than these four Epistles. 
 This timidity and wavering have proceeded from 
 anything but a thorouglily critical spirit. Every 
 intelligent man knows that the inspiring animus of 
 this criticism was a conviction that Christianity must 
 have been a gradual growth fully accounted for 
 by the historical forces at work at the beginning 
 of our era, and that the notion of supernatural 
 agency must be ruled out. To concede that Paul really 
 wrote the four principal Epistles bearing his name 
 is, however, a concession which practically cuts the 
 nerve of this whole critical system. It is a con- 
 cession that Paul himself proclaime<l supernaturaKsm 
 
 1 
 
in its sharpest form: and the result is that these 
 Epistles are assumed to date at the latest only 20 
 or 30 years from the time of Jesus, are admitted 
 to be genuine, aud (since Paul's honesty is not im- 
 pugned) presumably authentic. Baur, to be sure, as 
 an intelligent man, could not fully accept this con- 
 clusion, nor can his followers. Pfleiderer, for example, 
 admires and eulogises Paul, biit is unable to accept 
 his theology, or even his testimony as to facts. 
 Baur stood puzzled before the problem of Christ's 
 resurrection, which the Pauline Epistles unequivocally 
 affirm. He could not admit the fact of the resui'- 
 rection; yet Ms respect for Paul made him afraid 
 to be consistent enough to proclaim that Paul, in 
 promulgating the story of Jesus' resurrection, was 
 really promulgating a falsehood. 
 
 The traditionalists have not been slow to avail 
 themselves of this weak point in the critical as- 
 sault. They say, with force and plausibility, that 
 this discrediting of the Gospels, the Acts, and the 
 most of tlie Epistles is of little account, so long as 
 these four Epistles are allowed to stand as presenting 
 the substance of the Christianity which had all 
 along been preached. The argument is strong : K the 
 object is to overthrow supernaturalism, it can never 
 be accomplished, so long as Paul's cliief Epistles are 
 conceded to be genuine. If they are genuine, then they 
 represent not merely what Paul believed, but what 
 the Christians of his time generally believed. He 
 appeals to the universal belief of the Christian 
 Church, when he affirms the realit}^ of Christ's re- 
 surrection: and no one can consistently reject this 
 
doctrine without either inipugiiing the trustworthiness 
 ■of Paul or denying that Paul wrote the Epistles in 
 question. 
 
 It is strange that the critics have been so 
 ^shortsighted in their procedure. They have been so 
 occupied with their halfway measure and mth the 
 defence of it against the assaults of their orthodox 
 opponents, that they have failed to see that their 
 ■only safety is neither in remaining where they are, 
 nor in beating a retreat, but in boldly pushing 
 forwards and assailing the strongholds which they 
 have been trying to persuade themselves that they 
 can safely leave in the hands of the enemy. Bruno 
 Bauer ^, it is true, had the courage to deny the 
 Pauline authorship of all the so-called Pauline 
 Epistles ; but his work was hardly noticed by either 
 of the two main contending parties. He belonged 
 to no party, and his work seemed to be killed by 
 silence. For more than thirty years no one in 
 Germany ventured to join him in his bold effort. 
 C. H. Weisse^, it is true, undertook to sift out from 
 the Epistles what, by the exercise of his critical 
 insight, he judged to be spurious, making the 
 Epistles to the Corinthians (which he assumed to 
 be beyond question genuine) the touchstone by which 
 he tested the genuineness of everything else. He 
 went further than F. C. Baur in ejecting suspicious 
 portions from some of the Epistles, but acknow- 
 ledged as genuine the greater part, not only of the 
 
 ' A'riii/: der pmilinischen Briefe. Berlin 1852. 
 - Biitrdge zur Kritik der pazilinischen Briefe. Leipzig 1867. 
 
 1* 
 
four first Epistles, but also of those to the Phi- 
 lippians and the Colossians. His criticism, however, 
 seemed so arbitrary that he found no followers. 
 
 Dutch critics were the first, after Bruno Bauer, 
 to question the genuineness of all of Paul's Epistles. 
 AUard Pierson, in a discussion of the Sermon on 
 the Mount (published in 1878) expressed incidentally 
 serious doubt whether the common assumption of the 
 Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Galatians 
 could be maintained. Later (1882 sqq.) another 
 Dutchman, A. D. Loman, took up the subject of Paul's 
 Epistles in a theological periodical, and combated 
 the genuineness of the whole of them. Still more 
 recently Pierson, this time in combination with a 
 philologist, S. A. Naber ^ , has discussed the subject 
 at large, taking the ground that the Epistles were 
 for substance Jewish productions, the authors, however, 
 being regarded as Jews of a more spiritual sort than 
 the most. These writings he assumes that a Chris- 
 tian redactor, whom he calls Paulus Episcopus, 
 put together and supplemented, so that all that is 
 distinctively and unmistakably Christian in them 
 must be attributed to him. This result is, to be 
 sure, widely different from that of Bruno Bauer. 
 The latter regarded Judaism as having much less 
 influence on primitive Christianity than the Tubingen 
 school maintained, and considered the Epistles to 
 have been of purely Christian origin. Moreover, he 
 divided the Epistles differently. The Epistle to the 
 Romans, for example, he deemed to have been made 
 
 1 Verisiviilia. Amsterdam 188<). 
 
up of only four distinct parts, namely, chapters 
 i. — viii., chapters ix. — xi., chapters xii. — xiv., and 
 chapters xv., xvi. Piersou, on the contrary, holds 
 the Epistle to have been mostly of Jewish origin, and 
 to consist of a large number of Jewish fragments 
 pieced together and supplemented by Paulus Epis- 
 copus. 
 
 A German scholar (thongh living in Switzer- 
 land) has at length been found to take up the long- 
 neglected work of Bruno Bauer. Professor Rudolf 
 Steck of Berne, in a work^ primarily devoted to 
 the Epistle to the Galatians, discusses the whole 
 question of the Pauline Epistles, and comes to the 
 conclusion that they are all spurious. He agrees 
 with Bruno Bauer on the main point. As to the 
 Epistle to the Romans, he also agrees with him in 
 the division of it into four parts, but disagrees 
 with him in some matters of detail. He argues 
 that there are insoluble difficulties besetting the 
 assumption of the Pauline authorship of the Epistles; 
 tliat they show manifest acquaintance with the Gos- 
 pels; that they exhibit evidences of the influence of 
 apocryphal and heathen writers whom Paul himself 
 could not have been acquainted with ; and that they 
 betray a knowledge of customs which must have 
 been unknown to Paul (e. g. 1 Cor. xv. 29)2. 
 
 * Der Galaterbrief nach seiner EcJitheit initers/ic/it, nebst kri- 
 tisrhen Bemerkiingen zii den paulinischen Hauptbriefcn. Berlin 1888. 
 
 ^ Still later has appeared a new discussion of the (luestion 
 by Prof. Daniel Volter of Amsterdam, Die fCotnposilian der pattHni- 
 schen Hauptbrie/e, Tubingen 1890. Some comments on this will 
 be made at a later point. 
 
It is not to be expected that this radical re- 
 jection of views heretofore held by the conservative 
 and by the liberal alike will at once carry convic- 
 tion to all. But nothing can be clearer than that 
 Steck's position is the logical outcome of the move- 
 ment initiated by the Tiibingen school. As we have 
 remarked above, Baur's position was essentially un- 
 tenable,' and, as over against his orthodox opponents, 
 the victory certainly cannot be accorded to him. 
 The correct and consistent course would have been 
 to assume the unhistorical character of the whole 
 New Testament, to tlu'ow the onus probandi upon the 
 opposing part}^, and then to strengthen and (so far 
 as necessary) to defend this position in detail. For 
 the fundamental principle of this criticism (though 
 not always distinctly stated) is really such that the 
 credibilit}' of the Biblical books in general must be 
 denied. When, therefore, any of these books is not 
 anonymous, its genuineness must be contested, unless 
 tlie author is regarded as a gross deceiver. 
 
 There are three assumptions, which we may 
 regard as incontrovertible, lying at the foundation 
 of all scientific criticism of the Bible. They are (1) 
 that all important institutions are the result of a 
 gradual growth; (2) that no miracle has ever taken 
 place, and that supernaturalism is a superstition; 
 (3) that all traditional opinions of a religious nature 
 are to be assumed to be doubtful or false, except 
 as they are confirmed by the general approval of 
 critics. It is only when we make these assumptions 
 that we can be genuinely critical and free from 
 prepossessions. Now it follows at once and necess- 
 
arily from these principles, that Christianity was 
 of gradual growth, and owed nothing to startling or 
 miraculous events or personages. And therefore it 
 follows further that all the so-called Pauline Epistles 
 are unauthentic, since they represent Jesus as an 
 altogether unique and superhuman being, and Chris- 
 tianity as of supernatural origin. But if unau- 
 thentic, then the Epistles must be spurious, unless 
 (what hardly any one would pretend) Paul was a 
 shameless liar and impostor. This is the short meth- 
 od which a clear-headed and consistent criticism 
 must adopt. And strictly speaking, the main ques- 
 tion is thus settled at once. The coui'se which the 
 critical process takes depends on this fundamental 
 assumption. It is, therefore, in reality hardly nec- 
 essary to undertake to prove, by a minute exami- 
 nation of details the spuriousness of the Pauline 
 Epistles. Still, as the astronomer finds a new sat- 
 isfaction in seeing how each of the celestial phenom- 
 ena harmonises with the fundamental principles of 
 the Copernican and Newtonian system, so the crit- 
 ical student may rejoice when he sees that a close 
 study of the doctrinal and linguistic characteristics 
 of the New Testament books confirms the general 
 conclusion already reached respecting the origin of 
 Christianity. Besides, some minds are so peculiarly 
 constituted that they requii'e an accumulation of 
 proofs, even when proof enough has already been 
 furnished. Therefore it is well to show not only 
 that the so-called Pauline Epistles cannot be genuine, 
 but that they are not genuine. But for the present 
 we take up only one of them — the most impor- 
 
tant one — the Epistle to the Romans. If an im- 
 partial and critical examination of this work shows 
 that it is not what it has commonly been reputed 
 to be, then assurance will have been made doubly 
 sure, and one of the last strongholds of superiiatu- 
 ralism will have been captured. 
 
 The method to be pursued will be that of a 
 critical analysis which, by sho\ving that the Epistle 
 is a composite work, written by at least four authors, 
 each (or at least three) of them professing to be 
 Paul, destroys the traditional conception root and 
 branch. It has been a fault of critics hitherto that 
 they have too largely assumed the iinity of the 
 several Epistles of the New Testament. And even 
 as to the other books of the New Testament the 
 critical partition which is accomplishing such note- 
 worthy results in the Old Testament has not been 
 undertaken to any great extent. The Gospels, it is 
 true, are regarded as a compilation; but no thor- 
 oughly scientific analysis of their contents has 3^et 
 been made which presents us with a history of their 
 growth at all comparable with the marvellous anal- 
 ysis and history of the Pentateuch which modern 
 criticism has produced. A beginning has been made, 
 as we have seen , mth the Epistles ; but it can 
 hardly be called more than tentative. A more 
 \dgorous effort has recently been made to dissolve 
 the Apocalypse into its original elements, though 
 the two principal workers in this field do not agree 
 in their result — the one^ maintaining that the book 
 
 ' Ebevliard Visclier, Die Offenborung Johannis dm ji'idische 
 Apokalypse in chi-istUchei Bearbeitung. 188(i. 
 
in its main stock was of Jewish origin, and was 
 afterwards worked over by Christian hands; the 
 other ^ contending that the several parts, though 
 the product of ditferent periods, are all of Christian 
 origin. 
 
 But disagreements and unsuccessful experi- 
 ments should not be permitted to retard the onward 
 march of criticism. Sooner or later the right man 
 with the sure insight will be found, who will discern 
 the true make-up of each Biblical book so perfectly, 
 and set it forth so clearly, that thenceforth his anal- 
 ysis will be accepted as the ultimate solution. It 
 is with no small degree of confidence that the 
 following analysis of the Epistle to the Romans is 
 presented to the world as one which will at once 
 commend itself to all candid minds as uinnistakably 
 correct. Even though future critics should need to 
 modify our results in some unessential particulars, 
 the analysis in its main features must be regarded 
 as final. Let us then proceed to our work. 
 
 ^ Daniel Volter, Die Entstekimg der Apokalypsc. 1882. Die 
 Offenhariin:^ Johannis keinc urspri'ingUch ji'idische Apokalypse (a reply 
 to Vischer), 1886, 
 
CHAPTER IF. 
 
 THE DOCTRINAL ARGTBIENT. 
 
 Ihe principal proof of diversity of authorship 
 ill any work must come from the detection of 
 different types of thought in it. The more external 
 features are of themselves insufficient to guide us. 
 In our Epistle, for example, the singular fact that 
 it has several apparent endings has long been re- 
 marked upon, and received all sorts of explanations. 
 That a single writer should have left his letter with 
 such a jumble of doxologies, benedictions, and salu- 
 tations at the close seems very improbable. Yet 
 such a thing is not absolutely impossible, though 
 one's mind [is relieved, when other and more de- 
 cisive reasons are found for regarding the Epistle 
 as made up of four distinct ones, so that the several 
 endings belong to different authors, the compiler 
 simply leaving them as he found them. 
 
 These four authors being themselves all un- 
 known, we designate them for convenience' sake as 
 Gr\ G^ JC, and CJ. We use the signs Gi and G^ 
 for the reason that in the sections belonging to the 
 
11 
 
 first two there is almost no mention of Jesus Christ, 
 but only of God, as the supreme authority and the 
 author of salvation. They differ, however, decidedly 
 in their theological drift. The terms JC and CJ 
 are derived from the circumstance that in the sec- 
 tions belonging to the former the Redeemer is called 
 Jesus Christ, but in those belonging to the latter, 
 Christ Jesus. This distinction between the two is 
 largely obliterated in the Textus B-eceptus, but 
 comes out strikingly in the corrected text and in 
 the Revised Version. 
 
 Let us now notice more in detail the charac- 
 teristics of the four different writers. They are all 
 Christians, but present different phases of Christian 
 thought and doctrine. G^ portrays Christianity as 
 an ethical institution, a spiritualised Judaism. Sal- 
 vation, according to him, is gained by obedience to 
 the law. We find here nothing about faith of any 
 sort as a condition of salvation. In G^, on the 
 contrary, though nothing is said about faith in Jesus, 
 salvation is emphatically represented as a divine 
 gift, and the appropriation of it comes through faith 
 in God on the part of man. In JC the prominent 
 thought is that of justification through faith in 
 Christ, and particularly in Christ as a vicarious 
 sacrifice. In CJ the chief stress is laid on the 
 necessity of spiritual union between the Christian 
 and Christ, througli which the life of the flesh is 
 replaced by that of the Spirit. 
 
 It will be most convenient for the reader to be 
 able to see at once a statement of the conclusion to 
 
12 
 
 which our critical analysis 
 divide the Epistle as follows 
 
 i. 18— ii. 15.1 iii. 1—20. 
 
 has brouglit us. We 
 
 ii. 17—29. 
 xii. 9-xiii. 13. 
 xvi. 1.7—20. 
 
 m.27- 
 vii. 
 ix. ( 
 
 CJ. 
 vi. 2 — A^i. 6. 
 viii. 1—39. 
 xii. 1—8. 
 xiii. 14-xv. 7. 
 XV. 14—33. 
 xvi. 1—16. 
 
 JC. 
 , 1—17. 
 -iv.24. ii. 16. 
 24. iii. 21—26. 
 -33. iv. 2.5— V.21. 
 I XI. 1—36. I ix. 1—5. 
 
 1 I ^- l-^l- I 
 
 I I XV. 8—13. 
 
 I \xv{. 21— 27.1 
 
 1. Let us begin with G^. Of course the original 
 production could not have begun so abruptlj^ as 
 this. The Redactor (whom we designate by R), 
 having thought best to make an extract from JC 
 the introduction, naturally omitted what originally 
 served as the opening of G''s treatise. Of course 
 the yuQ in i. 18 was inserted by R, in order to effect 
 an apparent connection between this and the pre- 
 ceding. "Apparent'', we may well say ; for, narrowly 
 considered, the "for" is an^^thing but appropriate. 
 In verses 15 — 17 the writer (giving himself out as 
 Paul) proclaims himself as the preacher of the 
 gospel in which is revealed a righteousness of Grod 
 by faith — a faith by wliicli we are to live. How 
 incongruous, now, the following is with this: The 
 saving righteousness of God is revealed, for the 
 wrath of God is revealed! And in all that follows 
 in i. 18 — ii. 29 we find not one word more about 
 the justifying faith which has been announced as 
 the burden of the writer's message, but only the di- 
 vine vengeance on sinnerij, the deep depravity of 
 
13 
 
 the heatheu world, and the assurance that God will 
 deal with men according to their works (ii. 6), both 
 Jew and Gentile alike receiving even-handed justice 
 (ii. 9 — 12). Manifestly this section is no continuation 
 of what is introduced in i. 8 — 17. Here, on the 
 contrary, the doctrine is laid down that justification 
 comes from worJcs: "the doers of a law shall be jus- 
 tilied" (ii. 13). The whole burden of the section is 
 that the world in general is corrupt and exposed 
 to divine judgment, that men shall be judged by law 
 (ii. 12), whether the law of their hearts (ii. 15) or 
 the law of Moses. Circumcision is of no avail 
 uidess one keeps the law (ii. 25). If the uncircum- 
 cised keep the ordinances of the law, their uncircum- 
 cision is reckoned for circumcision (ii. 26). Through- 
 out i. 18 — 32 the leading thought is that the nations 
 by their corruption have exposed themselves to the 
 divine wrath; in ch. ii. the thought is emphasized, 
 that one should not judge another, that Jews should 
 not blame Gentiles, since all are under one condem- 
 nation in so far as they are sinful. — This writer, 
 however, though he lays stress on the law and the 
 necessity of obeying it, is no Pharisee, insisting on 
 outward forms and petty rules. Circumcision is de- 
 clared to be unable to secure salvation; a right 
 inward spirit is pronounced to be the essential thing. 
 The law which he enjoins is the law of purity, of 
 godliness, of love. But he has nothing whatever 
 to say of Jesus Christ as an agent in the work of 
 securing justification. 
 
 Having laid down his general doctrine and 
 enforced it, G' concludes with some practical injunc- 
 
14 
 
 tions. According to our analysis these admonitions 
 begin at xii. 9. This may seem arbitrary, as ch. xii. 
 appears to be a connected series of exhortations. 
 And the connection between ii. 29 and xii. 9 may 
 seem very abrupt. This latter objection is well 
 taken. But in reply it is only necessary to ob- 
 serve that B, may have omitted what originally 
 served as a transition, since he had decided to begin 
 the hortatory part with a selection from CJ. Of 
 course, therefore, G"s introduction to the exhor- 
 tations would necessarily drop out. But this being 
 conceded, it may still be asked why just this sec- 
 tion (xii. 9 — xiii. 13) is assigned to G^. Our reason 
 is twofold: (1) the total absence of the name of 
 Christ, and (2) the contents of the section. There 
 runs through the whole of it the spirit of i. 18 — ii. 29. 
 The exhortations have reference to the moral law 
 — the duty of love, of generosity, of forgiveness, of 
 obedience to magistrates, of general compliance with 
 the law of the two tables. Grod is stUl held up as 
 the avenger (xii. 19, xiii. 2). But in all this Jesus 
 is nowhere mentioned as the goal of effort or as 
 the source of inspiration. More particularly, observe 
 that xii. 1 — 8 is permeated by a different cast of 
 thought. The prominent thing there is the union 
 between Christ and his followers, and the union of 
 believers with one another. The union with Christ 
 involves the possession of gifts — charismata (xii. 
 6 — 8). What follows is indeed not inappropriate 
 here; and R was skilful in inserting this section 
 in this place. Yet a close scrutiny detects here a 
 different atmosphere. Whereas in xii. 1 — 8 the un- 
 
15 
 
 derlying thought is that of the transformation of 
 spirit which characterises the Christian (xii. 2) and 
 the divine gifts which are bestowed in Christ (xii. 
 5,6), in xii. 9 — xiii. 13 the prevailing thought is 
 that of the duties which men owe not only to fellow- 
 Christians, but to all men. At xiii. 10 the thought 
 culminates in the exalted statement, "Love is the 
 fulfilment of the law". The author, however, goes 
 on to make a more specific application of his ad- 
 monitions by warning against sensuality and schism 
 (xiii. 11 — 13). At ver. 14 we meet again with a 
 sentiment characteristic of the mystical CJ, to whom 
 belongs also ch. xiv. and the greater part of ch. xv. 
 It is true that ver. 14 seems to follow the foregoing 
 pertinently; and the exhortation to "put on" the 
 Lord Jesus Christ might seem to betoken the same 
 author who has just exhorted his readers to "put 
 on" the armor of light (ver. 12). But, over against 
 the manifest difference, all this only shows the skill 
 of the redactor in weaving the documents together. 
 It may not be possible to prove with rigid con- 
 clusiveness whether any more of the Epistle was 
 written by Gr^ As already observed, chh. xiv. and 
 XV. are to be ascribed to others. Ch. xvi. is not of 
 .such a sort that the internal evidence is everywhere 
 altogether decisive. It is, however, manifestly com- 
 posite; ver. 16 constitutes an ending, and the next 
 four verses (17 — 20) follow the salutations of verses 
 1 — 16 so inappropriately that they must have orig- 
 inated with a different author. And the burden 
 of these verses (dissuasion from contention) is so 
 appropriate as a continuation of xiii. 12, 13 that we 
 
16 
 
 ean hardly be mistaken in assuming that these also 
 are to be ascribed to Gr', and that with ver. 20 
 his part of the Epistle closes. It might be thought 
 that the expression in ver. 18, "they that are such 
 serve not the Lord Christ", is not characteristic of 
 Gr^, he having nowhere previously so ranch as even 
 mentioned the name of Jesus. If one choose, he can 
 of course eliminate this clause as being an inter- 
 polation, especially as the phrase "Lord Christ" no- 
 where else occurs in the Epistle, and seldom else- 
 where. This latter consideration, however, might 
 be urged on the other side, and the phrase regarded 
 as distinguishing G^ from the other authors. And 
 after all there is no decisive reason for thinking 
 that Gi could not have so spoken of Jesus Christ. 
 He probably wrote at a time when Jesus' authority 
 had acquired a great prominence, though he had not 
 come to be regarded as superhuman. But it is not 
 at all inconceivable that, as being the founder of 
 the Christian Church, the promulgator of a purified 
 conception of the Mosaic law, Jesus may by this 
 time have been spoken of as one who was to be 
 served, just as Moses was often represented as one 
 who had given commands (Mark x. 5) and was to 
 be obeyed. — It is more doubtful whether the be- 
 nediction in xvi. 20 is an original part of G^ Tliis 
 form of benediction hardly accords with the general 
 absence in G^ of reference to Christ. If that view 
 of Jesus' theanthropic nature which ultimately pre- 
 vailed in Christendom had been shared by G\ he 
 would have made frequent reference to him. From 
 internal evidence we infer that G^ wrote not far 
 
17 
 
 from 80 — 90 A. D, when we may suppose that le- 
 gendaiy influences had magnified the reputation of 
 .Tesus so that he was idealised and held to be a 
 great authority, though doubtless not yet regarded 
 as superhuman. Probably, therefore, such benedic- 
 tions as that of xvi. 20 could hardly yet have been 
 used ; yet since E, could have had no sufficient reason 
 for interpolating it here , the most probable suppo- 
 sition is that this benediction had been added by 
 some transcriber previous to R, in order to give the 
 letter a proper termination, and that R simj^ly left 
 it as he found it. It may seem strange that R 
 should not have omitted the benediction, however, 
 so as to prevent the appearance of so many different 
 endings to one letter. So we might ask, why did 
 he leave xv. 33 ? Why did he allow the salutations 
 to follow that benediction? However inexplicable 
 all tliis may seem, it is certainly no more inexpli- 
 cable than that Paul, or any other single authoi', 
 should originally have put his letter into the form 
 which it now has. It is easier certainly to suppose 
 that R simply left the benedictions as he found 
 them, and so, when he wove the different letters 
 together, left an appearance of terminations followed 
 by an addition to the Epistle, than that a single 
 author should without any reason have introduced 
 such a puzzling feature into his Epistle. It niaj- 
 be added, as another reason for doubting whether 
 G^ wrote this benediction, that the word yaQtg, 
 though frequently used by each of the other three 
 writers, nowhere else occurs in G', 
 
 Whatever may be the fact concerning such in- 
 
18 
 
 cidental points, the main division we have made 
 must be accepted as incontrovertible. G', as any 
 one can see who reads consecutively the sections 
 attributed to him, has a character quite distinct 
 from either of the other three. Li his general drift 
 he closely resembles the author of the so-called 
 Epistle of James. In both of them practical morality 
 of an elevated kind is the aim of the writing. In 
 both of them Jesus is mentioned with reverence, 
 but very seldom, and rather as the propounder of 
 a spiritual code of morals than as an object of per- 
 sonal faith and as the giver of spiritual life. Li 
 both of them faith denotes merely the acceptance of 
 the Christian ethics as the rule of life. Cf. James 
 ii. 1 with Rom. xiii. 11. James combats the notion 
 that faith can have any other meaning and use. He 
 must have written after this theological sense of 
 the word had come into vogue, and therefore may 
 have flourished somewhat later than G'. But the 
 two strikingly agree in their spirit. According to 
 both justification comes from works, not from faitli 
 (Rom. ii. 13, James ii. 24). Both warn against a 
 hearing of the word which is not accompanied by 
 a doing of it (Rom. ii. 13, James i. 22). But ,Tames 
 dwells more on certain special moral duties, where- 
 as Gr^ is more general and summar}' in his ethical 
 injunctions. 
 
 It will have been noticed that in ch. ii. one 
 verse has been dropped out as not belonging to G^ 
 >vis., ver. 16. Our reason for this is not merely the 
 fact that the name of Jesus Christ here occuivs. The 
 verse has always been a puzzle to commentators 
 
19 
 
 because it has no natural or easy connection with 
 the context. It is, rhetorically considered, out of 
 place, and numerous unsuccessful efforts have been 
 made to explain it. But we shall notice this fin-- 
 ther at a later point. 
 
 2. We turn now to Gr^. Here, too, the intro- 
 duction, whatever it may have been, has been ne- 
 cessarily omitted, in order to connect the writing 
 with that of G^ The latter having spoken (ii. 28, 
 29) of the character of the true Jew, R skilfully in- 
 .serts here a discussion from another source con- 
 cerning the privileges and distinction of the Jews. 
 But here we meet at the very outset with what is 
 wholly wanting in G^ namely, a reference to faith 
 (iii. 3); and throughout ch. iv. G^ {g occupied 
 with the proof and illustration of Abraham's faith. 
 Quite in contrast with G^, who not only nowhere 
 speaks of faith, but expressly declares that justi- 
 fication comes from works, G^ insists that faith is 
 the subjective condition of salvation, God, however, 
 not Christ, being the object of the faith and the 
 sovereign dispenser of salvation. Wliereas G^ had 
 argued that the heathen should be judged according 
 to their works, G^ argues that, just because the 
 heathen are hopelessly corrupt, they can be saved 
 only by divine grace, and not by the works of the 
 law (iii. 20, 28, iv. .5). Notldng but the habit of 
 indolent acquiescence in traditional notions can ac- 
 count for the fact that writings so opposite in their 
 tenor can so long have been assumed to be the pro- 
 duction of the same mind. A critical glance dis- 
 cerns the distinction, and every unbiased mind must 
 
 2* 
 
20 
 
 accept the verdict that two distinct aiitliors are to 
 be here detected. 
 
 The section iii. 21 — 26 is manifestly from a still 
 different source. Faith is here portrayed quite 
 otherwise than in the context. It is here faith in 
 Christ and in his atoning blood. If it should be 
 said that the general description of faith might be 
 specialised as faith in Jesus Christ, we must reply 
 that in the following section (iii. 27 — iv. 24) there 
 is a return to the general faith in God and an utter 
 absence of reference to the special relation of it to 
 Jesus. Moreover, as soon as the parts are once 
 detached from one another by the critical analysis, 
 every one sees at once the real relation of the pas- 
 sages. Throw out the verses (21 — 26) in which the 
 name of Jesus abounds, whereas before and after it 
 is wanting, and we not only eliminate the name, 
 but we find that the connection of thought is made 
 decidedly more clear and consistent. At iii. 19, 20 
 the author had concluded that every mouth is to 
 be stopped, and that all the M'-orld is to be brought 
 under the judgment of God. How naturally now 
 does he add (iii. 27), "Where then is the glorying?" 
 It is plain that R aimed to weave together the dis- 
 courses of G2 and JC. And there are indeed simi- 
 larities which make the combination easy. Both lay 
 stress on faith; both insist that justification is con- 
 ferred apart from works of the law. But with G^ 
 the representation is that man becomes a child of 
 God by virtue of faith that God will do "what he 
 has promised (iv. 13, 18, 20), whereas JC makes faith 
 
21 
 
 to be an acceptance of a redemption wrought out 
 by Jesus through his sacrificial death. 
 
 G2 furthermore is distinguished by the stress 
 he lays on the divine sovereignty. He everywhere 
 insists that God must have his way, whatever men 
 may do. At the very outset (iii. 3) we find hiin 
 saying, "What if some were without faith? Shall 
 their want of faith make of none effect the faith- 
 fulness of God?" Every mouth must be stopped, 
 and all the world must be brought under the judg- 
 ment of God (iii, 19), who "caUeth the things that 
 are not as though they were" (iv. 17). Tliis doc- 
 trine of the divine sovereignty is made still more 
 prominent in ix. 6 — 33 , where it is carried to the 
 extreme of making God purely arbitrary in the 
 bestowment of his favors (vid. verses 16, 20, 23). In 
 ch. xi. also the same doctrine is emphasized. Divine 
 grace and election are made the determining element 
 in salvation and condemnation (cf. verses 5 — 8, 28, 
 29, 35, 36). Nowhere else in all the Epistle do we 
 find this doctrine brought out. In chh. ix. and xi. 
 we trace the same mind that produced chh. iii. 
 and iv. with a certainty that can hardly be gain- 
 said. It is a question for exegetes, just how G^ 
 conceived the relation of divine sovereignty to human 
 faith. For he everywhere lays stress also on this 
 faith (iii. 28— 31, iv. 5, 11—16, 20, ix. 30—32, xi. 
 20, 23). It is clear, however, that as compared 
 with either of the three other authors he magnifies 
 the absoluteness of the divine will. 
 
 But we must return a little. We have made 
 the second section of G^ end with iv, 24. That 
 
22 
 
 ver. 25 does not belong in it is clear from its 
 character. It breathes the spirit of JC, and is 
 wholly different from the preceding. But it may 
 be questioned whether the last part of ver. 24 be- 
 longs to G^. For here we find mention of Jesus 
 and his resurrection. This, however, might con- 
 ceivably be made by G^. We cannot affirm that 
 he did not believe in the resurrection of Christ. He 
 certainly nowhere else speaks of it and must have 
 attached little importance to it. It may be remarked, 
 however, that in any case Jesvis is not here re- 
 presented as the object of faith, as is done by JC. 
 It is still God in whom Christians are said to be- 
 lieve; only it is God "who raised Jesus from the 
 dead". But on the whole it is by far most probable 
 that this clause is an interpolation introduced by R 
 to effect a transition to the JC section which he 
 here inserts (v. 1 — 21). For even if we assume 
 (what is indeed possible) that G^ shared the le- 
 gendary notion of the resurrection of Jesus, the in- 
 troduction of this reference to it is, when narrowly 
 considered, very awkward and pointless. He has 
 been arguing from Abraham's case to that of his 
 readers. Because Abraham's faith was reckoned to 
 him for righteousness, therefore ours will be. There 
 being this parallel, we should expect that, as Abra- 
 ham's faith was simply a faith in God and his pro- 
 raises, so ours must be also. How inconsequent, 
 therefore, it is to say that, as Abraham was justified 
 because he believed in God, so we shall be justified 
 if we believe in the God who raised Jesus from the 
 dead! It can hardlv be doubted that G^ himself 
 
23 
 
 ended the sentence with ntativovaiv — "foi' the sake 
 of US also, unto whom it shall he reckoned, who 
 helieve". 
 
 We come now to vii. 7 — 24. which we have 
 designated as the next section belonging to G^. It 
 needs hut little perspicacity to discern that this 
 section interrupts the course of thought found in 
 vi. 1 — vii. 6, and resumed in ch. viii. But R could 
 probably find no better place for it. It may be 
 doubted whether originally it followed immediately 
 after iv. 24. Possibl}- something was omitted here 
 as not fitting easily into the connection. Yet there 
 is no reason to assume the omission of any con- 
 siderable portion. The connection between iv. 9 — 24 
 and vii. 7 siiq. is not obscure at all. G^ l^as main- 
 tained that no one is justified by the works of the 
 law. He has affirmed (iv. 15) that the law works 
 wratli, and that salvation cannot be obtained by the 
 works of the law (iii. 20, 28, iv. 16). It is, there- 
 fore, quite natural that the objection should occur 
 to one: If this is so, then the law seems to be 
 worse than useless; it serves to promote sin, and 
 not to prevent it. And so the author must heed 
 the objection. Accordingly he says (vii. 7): "Wlmt 
 shall we sa}' then? Is the law sin?" And then 
 follows a discussion of the working of the law, in 
 which the emphasis lies on the point that the law 
 sharpens the conscience and develops a conscious- 
 ness of moral evil, but does not deliver from the 
 bondage of sin. All this connects admirably with 
 chli. iii. and iv., but very poorly with ch. v., where 
 the prominent thought is that of salvation through 
 
24 
 
 faith in Clmst , or with ch. vi. . where the author 
 (CJ) dwells on the personal union between Christ 
 and Christians — in neither of which chapters is 
 any stress laid on the law, but faith is contrasted 
 with sin, and salvation is represented as the gift of 
 di^dne grace. Gr^, however, magnifies the divine 
 sovereignty; and now that he has directed attention 
 to this apparently insuperable objection (that the 
 law is a means of evil), he meets it, not by saying 
 that repentance and faith in an atonement on man's 
 part can secure salvation, but by the bold assertion 
 that salvation is a divine gift conferred purely on 
 the ground of sovereign election, not through Christ's 
 death. After the impassioned exposition of the 
 struggle between conscience and impulse, he ends 
 by exclaiming, "Oh, wretched man that I am! Who 
 shall deliver me from the body of this death?" The 
 answer which immediately follows in ver. 25 is 
 manifestly not from Gr^, This whole verse is an 
 interpolation, and serves only to connect vii. 7 — 24 
 with ch. viii. Strictly speaking, E, interpolated 
 onl}' the first part of the verse. The last clause, 
 instead of leading forward to the main thought of 
 ch. ^dii., recurs to the general burden of vii. 7 — 24. 
 R could hardly have done his work so awkwardly, 
 if he had found nothing of this sort before him. 
 Now, as we read the concluding words of ver. 25 
 attentively, we cannot but be struck with the fact 
 that they are not at all in keeping with the pas- 
 sionate tone of the preceding. They sound rather 
 like a cold summarizing of the general burden of 
 the foregoing description. It is therefore most likely 
 
^5 
 
 that some transcriber wrote this sentence on the 
 margin , that a later one inserted it into the text, 
 and that R finding it there did not eject it. This 
 relation of tilings becomes obvious as soon as we 
 clearly discern that \di. 7 — 24 is an interruption 
 of the train of thought found in vi. 2 — 23 and viii. 
 1 — 39 and comes from a different source. 
 
 Having discovered this disturbing section to be 
 from G^, and the continuation of ch. iv., when we 
 cast about for G^'s own answer to the despairing 
 question of \ai. 24, we find, as might have been 
 expected, that it is not answered by G^ as R and 
 CJ answer it. He makes God, not Christ, the 
 deliverer. And the bondage complained of in vii. 
 7 — 24 is removed, according to him, by divine power 
 acting sovereignly. This is set forth in the next 
 section belonging to G^, namely ix. 6 — 33. Having 
 pictured the desperate condition of the sinful man, 
 whom the law seems to hurt more than help, he 
 now gives the solution. Although the law of God, 
 seems to do no good, yet, he says (ix. 6), "it is not 
 as though the word of God hath come to nought". 
 This is just the turn which the dolefnl conclusion 
 of \'ii. 24 requires, and exactly harmonises with 
 G^'s whole course of thought. And now follows 
 this remarkable section , in which human agency is 
 reduced, as it were, to the minimum, and the divine 
 election is exalted as the ultimate arbiter of human 
 destiny. That it is G^, and not G^ who is writing 
 appears clearly when we find at the close that faith 
 on man's part is still held up as necessary to the 
 obtaining of the blessing (ix. 30 — 33). In the dis- 
 
26 
 
 tinction between Abraham's seed and Abraham's 
 children (ix. 6, 7) we recognise the same mind which 
 uttered itself at iv. 11 — 17. Throughout chh. ix. 
 and xi. the doctrine is drawn out, that sah'^ation is 
 for Jews and Gentiles alike . and that it is a gift 
 of God appropriated by faith. But in all this not 
 one word is said about Christ's death, or faith in 
 his blood, or union with him — in fact not one 
 word about Christ at all. No doubt G^ recognised 
 Jesus as an eminent teacher ; but what Jesus taught 
 was, according to him, that God himself is the 
 Saviour and executes all liis designs with sovereign 
 power. In ch. xi. the author takes up more par- 
 ticularly the question about the Jews, and expresses 
 the confident hope that Israel will finally obtain 
 salvation, and in view of the prospect breaks out 
 into the passionate exclamation, "Oh the depth of 
 the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of 
 God!" and ends with the doxology, "To him be 
 glory for ever. Amen." This is manifestly one of 
 the terminations of the Epistle. What follows has 
 obviously no immediate connection with the foregoing. 
 The "therefore" is inserted by R to give the appear- 
 ance of sequence; but the exhortations of ch, xii. 
 have evidently nothing in particular to do with 
 the preceding discussion, and come from a different 
 source. 
 
 3. We come now to JC. This author repre- 
 sents a decidedly different type of thought from G- 
 or G^ He must have lived at a time when Jesus 
 had gained a unique authority, and was regarded 
 as in a peculiar sense the mediator between God 
 
27 
 
 and man. The iniiiience of the Ohl Testament is 
 still strong, however, but discloses itself in the re- 
 presentation of Jesus' death as the fulfilment of the 
 Mosaic sacrifices. We may not improbably conjec- 
 ture that he wrote about 120—130 A. D. Like Gr2 
 JC emphasizes faith; but it is faith in Christ and 
 his gospel. Jesus is at the outset glorified as the 
 Son of God (i. 4). The cliief emphasis is put on 
 Christ's death and resurrection as the ground of the 
 salvation wliich man receives through faith. Such 
 a notion of Christ and his work can of course not 
 have existed in the time of Paul. The use of the 
 name of Paul in the opening verse is therefore an 
 instance of pseudonymy the object of which was to 
 secure a readier acceptance for the teachings of the 
 writer. To make this still more plausible, he gives 
 the letter the appearance of ha\dng been addressed 
 to the Roman church by dwelling fictitiously on the 
 personal relations between him and the Roman 
 Christians. In i. 16, 17 he gives utterance to his 
 central thought, and grounds his doctrine of faith 
 on an Old Testament passage, "The just shall live 
 by faith". Now, as we have already seen, he cannot 
 have proceeded as he is made to do by R. Instead 
 of the gospel just amiounced as the central theme, 
 we find nothing but law and wrath throughout the 
 rest of this, and all the following, chapter. But in 
 the midst of this long section there occurs one verse 
 (ii. 16) which bears all the appearance of belonging 
 to JC. It is every way a striking phenomenon ; 
 and though we may not be able to explain fully 
 why R inserted it just here, in the midst of G^'s 
 
28 
 
 discourse, we can at any rate insist that on the 
 theory of the Pauline authorsliip of the whole 
 Epistle the phenomenon is no more easily explained. 
 The verse has always puzzled the commentators. 
 It has no apparent connection with the context. It 
 is even inconsistent with it; for the accusing and 
 excusing activity of conscience spoken of in ii. 15 
 is obviously something taking place noiv, not in the 
 future day of judgment. The discovery that ii. 16 
 is by a different author from hun who penned the 
 context is the simple solution of the problem. The 
 use of the name Jesus Christ just here, whereas it 
 occurs nowhere in the context, and the fact that 
 only here is any mention made of the gospel, make 
 it practically certain that tliis is a sentence belonging 
 to JC, but detached from its context. Whether de- 
 liberately by E,, or accidentally in some other way, 
 may be questioned. It may be that E, had the 
 feeling that in all this discussion G^ betrays too 
 little recognition of Christianity, that he therefore 
 wished somewhere to insert a clause which would 
 bring G^ more obviously into the Christian line of 
 thought, and that he found no better place than 
 this^ It may not be possible to show where the 
 verse originally belonged. In patching together 
 
 ^ This, whether or not the true reason, is at all events a 
 better one than can always be given for the numerous similar 
 dislocations in tlie Pentateuch. E. g. Gen. ii. 4 a , as the critics 
 have pointed out, originally belonged before i. 1, but was 
 transferred by R to this place. The fact of course no one 
 can doubt; but can any one give a sufficient reason for the trans- 
 ference ? 
 
29 
 
 several treatises R must have omitted some pas- 
 sages altogether; and the immediate context of this 
 verse may now be lost. Yet it is not difficult to 
 suppose that the verse originally followed immedia- 
 tely after i. 17; only, in order to avoid the appear- 
 ance of making the utterance in ii. 16 a part of 
 the quotation from the Old Testament, we must 
 assume that JC expressed himself somewhat like 
 this : "As it is written, The just shall live by faith ; 
 that is to say, they shall live in the day when Grod 
 shall judge", etc. Inasmuch as "live" in the New 
 Testament is very often used tropically of the fu- 
 ture life of blessedness (cf. John vi. 57, xiv. 19), 
 this is a very appropriate combination. 
 
 The doctrine propounded at i. 16, 17 is not 
 found again till we reach iii. 21 — 26. This section 
 follows i. 1 — 17 naturally and admirably. Here 
 again comes the doctrine of righteousness through 
 faith ; but it is more fully drawn out, and defined as 
 faith in the atoning blood of Christ. Then follows 
 the section iii. 27 — iv. 24, already considered, which 
 interrupts the discussion of the specific doctrine of 
 JC, though it agrees Avith it in so far as faith is 
 set over against salvation through works. But the 
 next sentence from JC is found at iv. 25, which, 
 without any change or addition perfectly connects 
 with iii. 26, so that we read: ^'ihe justifier of him 
 that hath faith in Jesus, who was delivered up for 
 our trespasses, and was raised for our justification". 
 Then follows ch. v. , which unfolds the doctrine of 
 free grace still further, and brings the discussion to 
 
30 
 
 an end. Clih. vi — viii. , as already observed, belong 
 to other writers. 
 
 We next come upon JC at ix. 1 — 5, wbere (still 
 giving himself out as Paul) he gives utterance to 
 the fervent wish that the Jews may become par- 
 takers of the great salvation. At ver. 5 occurs a 
 doxology and an apparent conclusion. But this is, 
 as has always been understood, only an exclamation 
 bursting out of the deep emotion of the writer. 
 Still it does mark a break. What follows, though 
 on the same general topic, and not incongruous with 
 the foregoing, is from another author, G^, as already 
 shown. From here to the end of the chapter there 
 is no further use of the name of Jesus (an omission 
 which in JC would have been impossible), and there 
 is the same dwelling on Jewish history in which 
 G2 indulges in ch. iv. It is at x. 1 that we find 
 the continuation of ix. 5. Let any one see for 
 himself how much more appropriate and logical the 
 connection is than between ix. 1 — 5 and the following. 
 After expressing his grief on account of the Jews, 
 "whose is the adoption and the glory", etc., JC goes 
 on to say, "Brethren , my heart's desire and my 
 supplication to God is for them, that the}'^ may be 
 saved". Here is the obvious continuation of ix. 1 — 5. 
 In ch. X. JC dwells on the mistake made by the 
 Israelites in trying to establish a righteousness of 
 their own and on the refusal of the larger part of them 
 to listen to the glad tidings. He differs from G^ 
 as regards his anticipations respecting the future of 
 the Jews. G^ (in ch. xi.) expresses an assurance 
 that eventually the covenant people will become 
 
31 
 
 partakers of the great salvation. JC, however, 
 though fervently desirous of such a result, can only 
 lament the obstinacy of the greater part of the Jews, 
 quoting at the end (x. 21) the passage, "All the day 
 long did 1 spread out my hands unto a disobedient 
 and gainsaying people". Moreover, the dogmatic 
 point of \dew is noticeably different in ch. x. from 
 what it is in chh, ix. and xi. In the former stress 
 is laid on man's faith. God saves those who call 
 upon him (x. 9, 12, 13), and the salvation depends 
 on faith in Christ (x. 4, 9). In the latter, though 
 faith in Grod is represented as the medium of re- 
 ceiving salvation, the salvation is described as the 
 gift of sovereign grace (ix. 15, 13, 24; xi. 2, 29, 32). 
 The next and iinal section of JC's part of the 
 Epistle is xv. 8 — 13. Even a superficial glance at 
 this chapter shows that this passage is out of place. 
 The preceding exhortation to the strong to bear the 
 burdens of the weak, and to be patient and har- 
 monious in their Christian life, receives no illustra- 
 tion or support from the statement that Christ has 
 been made a minister of the circumcision that he 
 might confirm the promise given to the fathers. This 
 has no tiling to do with the foregoing, and quite as 
 little to do with the following (xv. 14 sqq.). But it 
 comes in admirably as a continuation and comple- 
 tion of ch. X. There he sets forth that the gospel 
 was designed for the Jews, but had been largely 
 rejected by them. Here he says that Christ is a 
 minister of the circumcision for the truth of Grod in 
 order to confirm the promises made to the Jews, 
 and also that the Gentiles might glorify God for 
 
32 
 
 his mercy. What follows, however, are quotations 
 from the Old Testament foreshadowing the gathering 
 in of the Gentiles. How clearly we discern here 
 the same mind as in i. 8 — 17, where also the gospel 
 in declared to be for both Jew and Gentile, but 
 where also the stress lies on the conversion of the 
 Gentiles (verses 13, 14). If xv. 8 — 13 had been 
 written by the same man who wrote ch. xi. , he 
 could not have been content to leave, as the final 
 impression , that the ministry of Christ to the cir- 
 cumcision was to have, as its main outcome, only 
 the ingathering of the Gentiles, the Jews themselves 
 being tacitly relegated to unbelief and condemnation. 
 
 Ver. 13 is a benediction, which seems to come 
 in rather abruptly, but of course no more abruptly 
 on our hypothesis than on any other. It terminates 
 the doctrinal part of JC's discourse, and it might 
 be conjectured that JC's letter ended here. But it 
 seems on the whole probable that he added the sa- 
 lutations of xvi. 21 — 23 and the final benedictiouy 
 vers. 25 — 27, in which the name "Jesus Christ" 
 occurs, and which therefore was presumably written 
 by JC. 
 
 4. Finally we turn to CJ. As in the case of 
 Gi and G^, the original beginning of CJ's Epistle 
 was dropped, as being unnecessary; and we cannot 
 conjecturally supjjly the deficiency, it was here 
 more skilful than usual in putting his patchwork 
 together. The question with which ch. vi. opens 
 is naturally suggested by the course of thought at 
 the close of ch. v., and what follows is an answer 
 to the question. It is of course conceivable that in 
 
33 
 
 what was omitted of CJ's production something 
 occurred wliich made this question appropriate. But 
 it is far more likely that the question was inserted 
 by R in order to effect a transition from ch. v. to 
 the Epistle of CJ. He had only to insert this 
 question, which for substance was really used by 
 CJ in vi. 15, in this place; and so an excellent 
 connection was effected between the following and 
 the foregoing. 
 
 That ch. vi. was not written by JC, however, 
 is evident not merely or chiefly from the fact that 
 the name of Jesus is here uniformly found in the 
 form •'Christ Jesus", but from the type of religious 
 thought found in it. In JC the emphasis lies on 
 the vicariovis death of Christ (vid. iii. 25, v. 6 — 11); 
 here, on the contrary, it is laid on the doctrine that 
 the Christian dies to sin, i. e., puts it away from 
 him and is freed from its power. There the death 
 of Christ is represented as a sacrificial death; here, 
 rather, as an example which we have to follow 
 {vid. vi. 8 — 11). There Jesus appears as the re- 
 conciling Mediator through whom and from whom 
 justification and salvation are imparted to men 
 (v. 11, 15, 16, 18, 21); here, rather, as he in whom 
 men are made partakers of a new life (vi. 3 — 6, 
 11, 23). This general cast of thought is maintained 
 throughout chh. vi., vii. 1 — 6, and viii. 1 — 39. Union 
 with Christ in his spiritual life is the cardinal 
 feature of the whole section. In the JC sections, 
 on the contrary, this thought is not found at all. 
 
 The difference between the two writers strikingly 
 appears in their different conception of righteousness 
 
34^ 
 
 and justification. Both of them use the term 
 dtnaioavvrj, but not in the same sense. In every in- 
 stance in which JC uses it (i. 17, iii. 21, 22, 25, 26, 
 V. 17, 21, X. 3 — (), 10) mth reference to the pe- 
 culiar state or privilege of the Christian, it is used 
 in a forensic sense; it is God's justifying righteous- 
 ness, an imputed righteousness, not a moral state of 
 uprightness. CJ, on the contrary, in every instance 
 uses the word to denote the moral or religious state 
 of the Christian. He uses it at vi. 13, 16, 18, 19, 
 20, ^dii. 10, xiv. 17. No one looking at these pas- 
 sages by themselves , and without reference to JC's 
 use of dinaioavvri, would ever tliink of assigning to 
 the word here any other than the simple ethical 
 sense. And even those who regard the Epistle as 
 a unit have for the most part recognised this differ- 
 ence of sense. In reference to only one of these 
 passages (vi. 16), does Meyer, for example, under- 
 take to interpret the word as denoting justification; 
 and in this case he makes it refer not to the pre- 
 sent state, but to the J&nal judgment. Such phrases 
 as "the righteousness of God", "gift of righteousness", 
 "righteousness which is of faith", are entii'ely wanting 
 in CJ. 
 
 The same difference appears in the use of the 
 verb dixaiom, and the nouns dmaimfia and dixaimmg. 
 The verb is used twice by JC (v. 1, 9) and both 
 times expressly with reference to justification through 
 faith in Christ's atonement. It is used four times 
 by CJ (vi. 7, viii. 30 his, 33), but in none of these 
 instances is there any such express connection indi- 
 cated. No doubt the verb in all these cases may 
 
35 
 
 have a forensic sense; but in none of them is the 
 notion connected with the atonement of Christ. 
 Jiy.aimaig occurs only in JC (iv. 25, v. 18), and in 
 both cases is used with express reference to justi- 
 fication through Christ's redeeming work. Jiyaico/xa is 
 used by both, but in an entirely different sense. 
 JC (v. 16, 18) means by it a judicial sentence, or 
 justifying act; CJ means by it simpl}' an ordinance 
 (viii. 4). 
 
 In short, the general conception concerning the 
 initiation of the Christian life is markedly different 
 in the two writers. According to JC it is intro- 
 duced by faith in Christ on man's part (i. 17, iii. 
 22, 25, 26 , V. 1 , 2) and by an act of gracious ac- 
 quittal on God's part (iii. 21, 24, 26, v. 9, 16, 17, 18, 
 21). According to CJ, however, the Christian life 
 is begun by dying to sin, by being identified with 
 Christ in his death to sin (\d. 2 — 11, vii. 6, vm. 2), 
 and entering upon a spiritual life in Christ (vi. 11, 
 16, viii, 9 — 11, 14 — 17). It is a striking fact that, while 
 JC speaks of faith [niartg) in this specific sense 
 of justifying faith in Christ's atonement no less than 
 ten times (i. 17 tris, iii. 22, 25, v. 1, 2, x. 6, 8, 17), 
 and of believing {Ttiarsvco) no less than eight times (i. 16, 
 iii. 22, X. 4, 9 — 11, 14ibis) in the same sense, CJ noivhere 
 in the dogmatic part of his work uses niazi^, and 
 when he does use it, in the hortatory part (xii, 3, 
 6, xiv. 1, 23 bis), in every case denotes by it merely 
 the general religious attitude of the Christian. This 
 is equally true of his use of ntfrnvco (vi. 8, xiv. 2), 
 which, as he employs it, has no reference whatever 
 to faith in Christ's atonement. 
 
 3* 
 
36 
 
 Now if anytliing is cardinal in the so-called 
 Pauline doctrines, it is tlie conceptions of faith and 
 justification. Yet with reference to these conceptions 
 we discover a marked and unmistakable distinction 
 between JC and CJ. Their phraseology is largely 
 different; and where it is identical the meaning is 
 different. But let us now j)ass on to consider the 
 remainder of CJ's part of the Epistle. 
 
 At vii. 7 — 24 we stumble, as already observed, 
 upon a train of thought entirely different from 
 what precedes and what follows. In this section we 
 find nothing about Christ, nothing about justification, 
 nothing about sanctification ; but on the contrary 
 there is described a condition of bondage to sin. 
 Why R inserted the passage from G ^ just here may 
 seem mysterious. But whatever may be conjectured 
 as the reason, one thing is certain: there is no 
 greater difficulty on our theory than on the tradi- 
 tional one. Why should Faul have interrupted his 
 train of thought by such an irrelevant passage? 
 Still there is at least an apparent connection. In 
 vii. 6 sin and law seem to be identified, and the 
 Christian state is described as a deliverance from 
 both. This suggests the objection which is presented 
 in vii. 7, although, as we have seen, this same ob- 
 jection is suggested by what is said in ch. iv. But 
 the certain thing is that in its general spirit and 
 drift this section is quite different from its surround- 
 ings. Ch. vi. describes the state of being made 
 free from sin (verses 18 — 23). The same description 
 continues through vii. 1 — 6. From there, if we omit 
 vii. 7 — 25 , the transition is as easy as possible. 
 
37 
 
 The whole of chapter viii. is nothing but a develop- 
 ment of the same general idea — freedom from sin 
 and condemnation (verses 1 — 9), union with Christ 
 (verses 10, 17, 35), and walking after or in the 
 Spirit (verses 4, 5, 9, 11, 23, 26). At the close of 
 the chapter the author concludes his doctrinal dis- 
 cussion in an eloquent burst of confident assurance 
 of the indissolubleness of the union between the 
 C'hristian and Christ. 
 
 There remain the exhortations and salutations 
 which we have assigned to CJ. These begin at 
 xii. 1 — 8. W^iat is here enjoined breathes a spirit 
 and is expressed in language strikingly lil^e that 
 of vi. 11 — 13. Closely cognate with the doctrine 
 of the union of Christians with Christ is that of 
 Christians with one another; and this is here ur- 
 gently enforced (xii. 4, 5). As already observed, it 
 may seem to be somewhat arbitrary to assign 
 xii. 9 sqq. , to another author. There seems to be 
 no marked change of style or tone at this point. 
 The exhortations of xii. 9 — xiii. 13 are in general 
 harmony with those of xii. 1 — 8. The injunctions, 
 to shew mercy with cheerfulness, and to let love 
 be without hypocrisy, are certainly kindred ; and E, 
 was unusually happy in his dovetailing here. But, 
 as we remarked before, the general cast of thought 
 is after all not the same in the two sections. It is 
 scarcely conceivable that CJ could have written so 
 much without once using the name of Christ. The 
 central thought of xii. 9 — xiii. 1 3 is that of obedience 
 to law, but to law in its spiritualised form — the 
 law of love. The central thought of xii. 1 — 8 is 
 
38 
 
 that of the union of Christians with one another in 
 Christ J. This thought re-appears in ch. xiv. This 
 whole chapter, as also xv. 1 — 7, deals with the duty 
 of Christians to one another as common members 
 of the body of Christ, especially as related to the 
 question of recei\dng new members and the proper 
 mode of dealing with weak members. The last verse 
 of ch. xiii. probably belongs to CJ, although it does 
 not appear to be a specially happy transition from 
 xiii. 11 — 1.3 to xiv. 1. But Gr' could not have written 
 the verse. The notion of putting on the Lord Jesuit 
 and not making provision for the flesh is entirely 
 in the spirit of C J ; and if the verse was not origi- 
 nally found at this point , we must suppose that its 
 context was dropped, and this particular verse was 
 retained by R as coming in appropriately after 
 xiii. 13 and as furnisliing a good conclusion to tliis 
 class of admonitions. 
 
 The hortatory part of CJ closes at xv. 7. The 
 section xv. 8 — 13, as already remarked, and as is 
 obvious at a glance, has nothing to do with the 
 preceding, and belongs to JC. In xv. 14 — 33, how- 
 ever, we detect again the hand of CJ. The name 
 of Jesus, when joined with the epithet Christ is in 
 the form "Christ Jesus". The author here speaks 
 more of his personal relations to the readers and of 
 his personal activity. Though the name of Paul is 
 not used, it is clear enough that he means to give 
 
 * It was not till after our critical inspection of the Epistle 
 had detected this distinction that we noticed that Tischendorf 
 makes a new paragraph begin at xii. 9. 
 
39^ 
 
 himself out as Paul. At ver. 33 we have a bene- 
 diction which might seem to be the end of CJ's 
 part of the Epistle; but the following salutations 
 (xvi. 1 — 16) are almost certainly to be ascribed to 
 CJ. The form "Christ Jesus" (ver. 3), and the fre- 
 quent use of the phrase "fellow-worker in Christ" etc., 
 are characteristic of CJ, so that this section is to be 
 regarded as an appendix. 
 
 We have now gone through the whole Epistle, 
 and unmistakably shown that, when its contents 
 are examined, they disclose themselves as the pro- 
 duct of at least four different minds. To the un- 
 prejudiced the arguments must be ample. But that 
 the proof may be complete, we will consider the 
 evidence to be derived from the language of the 
 Epistle. 
 
CHAPTER 111. 
 
 THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT. 
 
 1. We have had frequent occasion to call atten- 
 tion to the striking fact that certain parts of the 
 Epistle are characterized by the use of the name 
 Jesus Christ, others by the use of the form Christ 
 Jesus, while in still others the name of Jesus scarce- 
 ly occurs at all. In the sections which we have 
 assigned to JC the form "Christ Jesus" occurs only 
 once (iii. 24). When we consider how the Textus 
 E-eceptus has almost obliterated the distinction be- 
 tween the two forms, the copyists in their careless- 
 ness having substituted one for the other, it is not 
 strange that in a single case such a substitution 
 should have found its way into the earlier MSS., 
 and no trace be found of the original form. Of 
 course we cannot affirm that JC liimself could not 
 once have used the form Christ Jesus. But when 
 we consider how uniformly in certain long sections 
 the one form, and in others the other, prevails, it 
 seems most likely that this single exception is due 
 
41 
 
 to transcribers rather than to the author. In the 
 passages assigned to CJ we never find the simple 
 form "Jesus Christ". Thrice, however, he uses the 
 combination "Lord Jesus Christ" (xiii. 14, xv. 6, 30). 
 But the form "Lord Christ Jesus" never occurs any- 
 where, so that this is scarcely to be regarded as 
 an exception. 
 
 Now it may be objected that the difference 
 between "Jesus Christ" and "Christ Jesus" is a purely 
 rhetorical one, and cannot be regarded as betokening 
 difference of authorship. Could not the same man 
 use interchangeably both forms? This certainly is 
 quite conceivable. But when we find the one form 
 used exclusively in sections of considerable length, 
 and then the other exclusively' in other sections; 
 moreover, when we find the distinction coinciding 
 tvith a clear distinction in doctrinal type, then it is 
 no longer reasonable to assume that the variation 
 is a mere unmeaning accident. When we find that 
 the mystic, CJ, uniformly uses the combination 
 "Christ Jesus", while the theologian, JC, uniformly 
 uses the other, the peculiarity in the use of the 
 names confirms the conclusion already arrived at 
 on the ground of the difference in doctrinal thought. 
 But why should the one prefer the one name, and 
 the other the other? Even if we could not tell, 
 the argument from the distinction would be no less 
 valid. But we can at least give a conjectural expla- 
 nation. In the form "Christ Jesus" the emphasis 
 lies on the last word ; and this form suits especially 
 the writer who emphasizes the intimate and tender 
 relation subsisting between Christ and his followers. 
 
42 
 
 It need hardly be mentioned that all this is not 
 inconsistent with the fact that both JC and CJ fre- 
 (juently use the term Christ alone. The variation 
 in the use of the names of the Redemeer, if it stood 
 b^^ itself, would, however striking, not be sufficient 
 to establish the proof of diverse authorship. But 
 when we find it running parallel with deeper differ- 
 ences , it becomes a strong proof. It is a second 
 witness confirming the word of another. 
 
 2. The next point to which we call attention 
 might have been treated when we spoke of the con- 
 tents of the Epistle. We refer to the ethical use 
 of the word rruQ^, flesh. The word has frequently, 
 in the so-called Pauline Epistles, this peculiar mean- 
 ing. But so far as the Epistle to the Romans is 
 concerned, it is a striking fact that this special use 
 of the word is confined to one of the four authors, 
 viz., CJ. It is manifest that tliis terminology is 
 quite in harmony with the general style of CJ. 
 His fundamental principle is that the Cliristian life 
 is a new life in the Spirit, and radically distin- 
 guished from the old life which, as contrasted with 
 the new, he calls living in the flesh. The term 
 •'flesh" occurs, it is .true, in other parts of the 
 Epistle, but only in its more literal sense, e. g., i. 3, 
 ii. 28, iii. 20, iv. 1 etc. The ethical sense, of sinful 
 passions and impulses, occurs only in vi. 19, vii. 5, 
 viii. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12 his, 13, xiii. 14 — in every case, 
 therefore, in the writings of CJ, while in all the 
 other writers this sense is entirely wanting. Can 
 this be a pure accident? To be sure, at \ai. 18, 25 
 (in G^) we seem to find instances of the same ethical 
 
43 
 
 sense. But there are ample reasons for judging that 
 in these two verses this use of the word is to be 
 attributed to R, who thus sought to bring this sec- 
 tion as much as possible into connection with the 
 context. We have already for other reasons con- 
 cluded vii. 25 to be an interpolation. As for vii. 18, 
 tlie clause, "that is, in my flesh", is manifestly su- 
 perfluous , and sounds decidedly like an epexegesis 
 added bv another hand than that of the writer'. 
 
 ^ No one can object to this critical conjecture who has had 
 occasion to see how often the same process has to be resorted 
 to by Old Testament critics, in order to keep the seveial con- 
 stituent parts distinct. Jf this liberty were not allowed, there 
 would often be seiious embarrassment in disentangling the parts. 
 E. g.^ the critics agree in assigning Ex. i. 1 — 5 to P (Q), and 
 i. 6 to J. But in Terse 7, which is assigned to P, occur words 
 which are characteristic of .J, especially 1CJiJ?^V This, therefore, 
 must be ejected. To be sure, the critics ai'e not agi'eed as to 
 the rest of the verse. Wellhausen (Composition des Hexaieuchs, 
 p. 62) throws out l^l^l also; while Noldeke retains this, and 
 ejects iJillJ'il, The last two verbs are found in both P and .T, 
 the latter most frequently in P, though AVelUiausen himself 
 (p. 63) admits it in Ex. vii. 28 [Engl. viii. 3], which he as- 
 signs to JE. A more important instance of a similar critical pro- 
 cedure is found in 1 Sam. ii. 22, where the last paii of the 
 verse, on account of the occurrence of the phrase "lyiQ '^HNi ^^^ 
 to be thrown out by the critics, because it conflicts with their 
 theory that the tabernacle never existed except in the fancy of 
 postexilic writers. Wellhausen (Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 
 p. 43) gives two reasons for doing so: (1) that the passage is 
 "poorly attested", and (2) that '-its contents are suspicious". The 
 fu-st is founded on the fact that the LXX does not contain the 
 passage, though the Alex. Codex of the LXX and all other an- 
 cient versions contain it. But even if all the codices of the 
 LXX had it, the second reason woxdd be sufficient, and would 
 
44 
 
 The same is to be said of the adjective aaQy.ivoi 
 {naQy.iy.6c) in vii. 14. Indeed this whole verse is 
 most probably an interpolation by R. The thought 
 is only a repetition of that of verses 12 and 23. 
 If we leave the verse out, it is not missed at all. 
 
 Moreover, it is to be observed that the antithesis 
 of this etliical oag'^ is nrevim. In the ethico-sj)iritual 
 sense this word also is found only in CJi cf. ^dii 4, 
 5, 6, 13. This word is in fact not found in the 
 other three authors . except in i. 4 , 9, ii. 29, v, 5, 
 ix. 1, xi. 8, xii. 11, xv. 13: and in none of these 
 cases does it have the peculiar sense. Now it is 
 self-evident that the adjectives ''fleshly" and "spi- 
 ritual" could not have been used in the ethical sense 
 till after the substantives were so used; and it is 
 therefore extremely unlikely that Gr^ could have 
 used these two adjectives in such a sense while he 
 nowhere so used the substantives. We can there- 
 fore hardl^^ ha^-e any doubt that vii. 14 is wholly 
 an interpolation. 
 
 This second point only serves to argue a dis- 
 tinction between CJ and the rest of the Epistle. 
 Tlie point jii^eviously considered served to argue a 
 distinction between CJ and JC, and between these 
 two and the rest of the Ejnstle. Thus far the 
 
 no doubt have led to the expulsion of the clause, even if there 
 had been no other reason. In view of the indisputable right of 
 critics to reject, as inteii)olations , words and phrases which are 
 specially characteristic of another writer, we hardly need to give 
 any other reason for our rejection of the clause in question in 
 Eom vii. 18 than the simple fact that oapl is here found used 
 in a sense which is characteristic of CJ. 
 
45 
 
 linguistic argument at the best points to no more 
 than three authors. We pass now, however, to a 
 more minute linguistic analysis. 
 
 3. We have made a complete collation of all 
 the words of the Epistle, excepting only a few of 
 the most common words, such as i9e6g, the more 
 frequent conjunctions and prepositions, the article, 
 the numerals, the pronouns, and most proper names. 
 We have tabulated them and can at a glance see 
 where in each of the four authors, and how many 
 times, each word is used. 
 
 We have found, besides the words above men- 
 tioned as left out, 928 words in the Epistle. Of 
 these there are 173 used only hj G^ 171 by G^, 
 98 by JC, and 186 by CJ. The sum of these is 
 628, so that there remain only 300 that are used 
 in common by two or more of the four. In parti- 
 
 cular the ] 
 
 •elation is best seen 
 
 when put i 
 
 tabular form. 
 
 
 
 Used 
 
 ojilv 
 
 by Gi . . . . 
 
 173 
 
 n 
 
 55 
 
 ., <^2 . . . 
 
 
 . 171 
 
 n 
 
 ?? 
 
 „ JC . . . 
 CJ 
 
 
 98 
 186 
 
 n 
 
 
 .. Gi and G2 
 
 
 . 25 
 
 )5 
 
 •• 
 
 .. G» and JC 
 .. Gi and CJ 
 .. G2 and JC 
 .. G2 and CJ 
 
 
 13 
 
 30 
 31 
 40 
 
 n 
 
 
 .. JC and CJ 
 
 
 31 
 
 )? 
 
 ., 
 
 ., G', G2, and JC 
 
 17 
 
 H 
 
 ., 
 
 .. Gi, G2, and CJ 
 
 28 
 
 » 
 
 
 .. G'. JC. and 
 
 CJ 
 
 15 
 
46 
 
 Used only b}' G^, JC, and CJ . 30 
 
 ,. by all four 40 
 
 Total .... 928 
 
 From this table we gather that G^ uses in all 
 341 words, G^ 3g2, JC 27.5, and CJ 400. Conse- 
 quently it follows that more than a half of the 
 words used by Gr^ are used by him alone, viz., 
 50.73 per cent. The proportion in the case of G^ 
 is 44.76; of JC, 35.64; of CJ, 44. 
 
 We should naturally expect the number of 
 different words used to correspond pretty nearly 
 with the whole number of words used, including 
 repetitions of the same word. But this is not the 
 case. Thus, wliile there are only 73 verses in the 
 sections assigned to G', he uses 341 different words ^ 
 JC, on the other hand, who writes 85 verses, uses 
 only 275 diiferent words. Stated proportionally, 
 the relation is as follows: G' uses (words 341, 
 verses 73) 4.67 times more words than verses; G^ 
 (382 : 131) 2.92 times more; JC (275 : 85) 3.24 times 
 more ; C J (400 : 142) 2.82 times more. In every 
 respect, therefore, G * is the most unique of the four. 
 He uses decidedly more words in proportion to the 
 extent of his writings; he has a decidedly larger 
 proportion of words used only by hunself. G^ and 
 CJ are in these respects nearly alike. JC exceeds 
 these two in the proportion of words to verses, but 
 is the least original of all in the relative proportion 
 of words used by himself alone. Between G^ and 
 
 ^ It would be more exact to count the words (including 
 repetitions) rather than the verses. But the proportion would not 
 be materially different. 
 
47 
 
 G2, who might have been expected to present a 
 similarity in their vocabulary and style, there is a 
 marked difference. Is it conceivable that one and 
 the same writer in the first half of his work would 
 use 4.67 times more words than verses, and in the 
 second half only 2.92 times more? 
 
 Let us compare G' and JC as respects the 
 words peculiar to each. In his 73 verses G^ uses 
 173 words which occur nowhere else in the Epistle, 
 i. c, on the average 2.73 in every verse. JC, on 
 the other hand, in his 85 verses uses only 98 words 
 not found in the other parts; that is, on the average 
 in every verse only 1.15! G^ and CJ on the con- 
 trary, although theologically very unlike, come 
 much nearer together in their vocabulary and in the 
 propoi-tion of words to verses. But we leave it to 
 the reader to carry out the comparisons for himself. 
 
 It is instructive to compare this result with a 
 similar analysis of Gen. i — xii. 5 which has been 
 made by Prof W. R. Harper i. He finds the whole 
 number of different words to be 485 , of which P 
 uses 239 , and J 367. Those used exclusively by P 
 number 118, by J 246. Therefore there are 121 
 common to the two. Turning now to our Epistle 
 and comparing G^ and G^, we find that together 
 thej^ use 613 different words, but that only 110 are 
 common to the two. That is, while V4 of the whole 
 vocabulary of P and J is common to the two, only 
 ^ of the whole vocabulary of G^ and G^ is common 
 to the two. So far as this indication goes, there- 
 
 in the Hel^raka, October 1888. 
 
48 
 
 fore, it speaks more decidedly for the non- identity 
 of G^ and G2 than for that of P and J. If we 
 compare the whole number of different words used 
 by P and J with the number used by each exclu- 
 sively, it appears that those which P alone uses are 
 ^j^ of the whole , while those used by J alone are 
 j-g^ of the whole. This is a strildng disproportion, 
 but it is almost equalled by that which is found 
 between CJ and JC, who together use 559 words, 
 of which ^ are used by CJ alone, but only ^^ 
 by JC alone. 
 
 Let us now take JC and CJ. Together they 
 use 559 different words. Coimnon to the two only 
 116, that is 1^, as against the ~ in the case of P 
 and J. 
 
 If we compare similarly G^ and CJ, we find 
 that together they use 644 different words. Of these 
 138 are common to the two, that is, ^^ of the 
 whole. 
 
 Comparing G^ and CJ, we find that together 
 they use 628 words, of which 113 are common to 
 the two, that is, only ^ of the whole. 
 
 Comparing G^ and JC, we find that together 
 they use 531 words, of which 85 are common to the 
 two, that is, g|^ of the whole. 
 
 Comparing 6-2 and JC, we find them using 539 
 words in all, and of these 118 in common, that is, 
 i^T of the whole. 
 
 4.57 
 
 We have thus gone tlirough the possible per- 
 mutations, and find that in the comparison of any- 
 two of these parts of the Epistle to the Romans with 
 
j49 
 
 one another, the nimiber of words common to the 
 two is never more than r^ of the whole, and in 
 one case is only g^, of the whole, the average being 
 ~, as over against the j in the corresponding 
 companson of P and J in Gen. i — xii. 5. Every 
 one must see the significance of this result. If the 
 linguistic phenomena brought out by Prof. Harper 
 indicate diiFerence of authorship in Gen. i — xii. 5,. 
 a fortiori does the result of our analysis indicate 
 the fourfold authorship of the Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans '. 
 
 This general conspectus of the vocabulary of 
 the Epistle might seem to be sufficient, in connec- 
 tion with the presentation of the doctrinal diflPeren- 
 ces, to establish our main proposition beyond the 
 
 * Our omission of the pronouns and the more common con- 
 junctions and 2)repositions must he quite balanced by the prefixes, 
 suffixes, and inseparable prepositions and conjunctions of the 
 Hebrew, which of course cannot have been counted in Prof- 
 Harper's enumeration. Should all these words be added to our 
 list, it would be increased by about 64, of which 41 are used by 
 aU in common. But here, too, striking phenomena appear. E. g., 
 TTpos occurs nowhere in G^, once in G-, but 7 times in JC and 
 10 times in CJ. "Os is used by CJ 17 times, by G^ 13 times, 
 but by JC only 4 times, and by G^ only once. Oizco occurs 
 17 times in G^ and nowhere else, '^tto occurs in CJ 15, inG* 
 and JC each 4, in G^ only 2 times. ^JEyoj iu G- 10, in CJ 4, 
 in JC 2 times, in G ^ not at all. M in G « 22, CJ 20, in G ' and 
 J each 4 times, "iva in CJ 14, G2 12, JC 4 times, in G^ not 
 at all. Msra in CJ 4 times, JC twice, G^ once, G^ not at all. 
 3Iti inteiTOgative in G* 6 times, JC once, in G* and CJ not at 
 all. ^vv 4 times in CJ, nowhere else. Tt's in G^ 24, CJ 14, 
 JC 4 times, in G^ not at all. '!%*(> in JC 10, CJ 8 times, G* 
 once, G * not at all. 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 possibility of doubt. Is it rational to suppose that, 
 if all these parts of the Epistle were written by 
 one man, there would be so large a proportion of 
 words used exclusively in each of the four parts? 
 But we need not rest our argument on this general 
 aspect of the case. Let us go more into particulars. 
 
 We cannot of course derive a conclusive argu- 
 ment from words which occur only once in the 
 Epistle. Yet these cannot be thrown aside as of no 
 weight at all. K the number of them were small, 
 we should say that such a phenomenon is just what 
 might have been expected ; but if the number is very 
 large, the case is radically different. When we find 
 that more than one half of G^'s words are used in 
 none of the other three parts, and that (though in 
 a less proportion) each of the other three parts 
 presents likewise an immense proportion of words 
 found in none of the others, every one must see 
 that in this there is an indication of diversity of 
 authorship. 
 
 But let us take up the words that are used 
 more than once. Here we may distinguish several 
 classes. 
 
 a. When a word occurs more than once, but 
 only in one of the four parts, we find in this fact 
 a strong confirmation of the hypothesis that the four 
 parts originated with, different authors. Thus, to 
 take the parts up in order, we find that the following 
 words are used more than once , but only in Gr ' : 
 cpmi; and (Txntog, ii. 19, xiii. 12; snaivog, ii. 29, xiii. 3; 
 reUm, ii. 27, xiii. 6; anodidcoiii, ii. 6, xii. 17, xiii. 7; 
 (ftavBonq, i. 19, ii. 28 (his); roiovroc, i. ,32, ii. 2, 3, 
 
51 
 
 xvi. 18; ngotTxaQteQ^co, xii. 12, xiii. 6; fioixsvco, ii. 22 
 (bis), xiii. 9; yl^ntm, ii. 21 (bis), xiii. 9; (Qig, i. 29; 
 xiii. 13; dvanoXoytjtog, i. 20, ii. 1; drtfid^co, i. 24, ii. 23. 
 It is noticeable how many of these are found in two 
 widely separated sections which had been assigned 
 to Gr' on the ground of the contents, before the 
 linguistic examination was made. 
 
 In G-2 alone are found the following: dniatia, 
 iii. 3, iv. 20, xi. 20, 23; dnoxTEivoi, vii. 11, xi. 3; 
 ixxXda, xi. 17, 19, 20; sxloyr;, ix. 11, xi. 5, 7, 28; 
 iTiBt, iii. 6, xi. 6, 22; /Jia^a, vii. 15, ix. 13; odoi;, iii. 
 16, 17, xi. 33; 6q)ihaXfi6g, iii, 18, xi. 8, 10; (fvQafia, 
 ix. 21. xi. 16. 
 
 In JC alone the following: inixaUtt, x. 12, 13, 
 14; fJiaQtvQim, iii. 21, x. 2; ngorh^tjfii , i. 13, iii. 2.5; 
 Qiifia, X. 8 bis, 17, 18; (TttjQiXco, i. 11, xvi. 25; dmaroh'j, 
 iii. 22, X. 12; Sixaicoaig, iv. 25, v. 18; and the phrase 
 vTiaxot] ni'atscog, i. 5, xvi. 26. 
 
 In C J alone the following : ddvvatog, viii. 3, xv. 1 ; 
 dlXozQiog, xiv. 4, xv. 20; dmY.8ifp\iai, viii. 19, 23, 25; 
 (xQ^Txa), viii. 8, XV. 1, 2, 3; daO-hsia, vi. 19, viii. 26; 
 didarry.aXia , xii. 7, XV. 4; doxtfiog, xiv. 18, xvi. 10; 
 dovXoco, vi. 18, 22; ixxXrjafa, xvi. 1, 4, 5, 16, 23; 
 exlsxtog, viii. 33, xvi. 13; iXsv&sQoco, vi. 18, 21, viii. 
 2, 2l;>fvexa, viii. 36, xiv. 20; svdosarog, xii. 1, 2, 
 xiv. 18; d-avar6a>, vii. 4, viii. 13, 36; ■O-vrjtog, vi. 12, 
 viii. 11; xamjTTjg, vi. 4, vii. 6; fiijxixi, vi. 6 xiv. 13, 
 XV. 23; oixo8o(i{j, xiv. 19, xv. 2; ov^fi/t?, xiv. 7 6«5, 14, 
 viii. 1; Tzd&tjfia, vii. 5, viii. 18; na^dxlrjatg, xii. 8, 
 XV. 4, 5; naQi'aTTini, vi. 13 6»S, 16, 19 6/5, xii. 1, 
 xiv. 10, xvi. 2; itQoaXaii^dvta, xiv. 1, 3, xv. 7; (pQovtjfia, 
 
 4* 
 
52 
 
 viii, 6 his, 7, 27; xcoQit^oj, viii. 35, 39; y.vQtevm, vi. 9, 
 14, vii. 1, xiv. 9. 
 
 b. It is to the same effect, when certain words 
 are used predominantly, though not quite exclusively, 
 in one of the four parts. Thus in G-i we find tifi^ 
 4 times, elsewhere only once; in G^ y(vofiai 25 times, 
 in G^ twice, JC 3 times, in CJ 7 times, «'. e., six 
 times as often in G^ ^s on the average in either of 
 the three others — certainly a most remarkable 
 phenomenon; ildco 7 times, elsewhere only once; 
 {f^^Xco 12 times , elsewhere thrice ; an^Qfia 8 times, 
 elsewhere once; xaX^m 5 times, elsewhere only viii. 
 30, where it occurs twice ; svqictxm 4 times, elsewhere 
 only once; in CJ txaajog 4 times, elsewhere once; 
 iXm^()i 3 times, elsewhere once; Caw 18 times, else- 
 where 4 times ; xtiaig 5 times, elsewhere twice ; nvsvfia 
 (of the Divine Spirit) 21 times, elsewhere 3 times;. 
 (T&fia 10 times, elsewhere 3 times; dnoO-vijaKm 17 
 times, elsewhere 6 times; adslqjog 14 times, elsewhere 
 6 times 1. 
 
 c. Again, we may notice that certain very 
 common words are in some of the four parts wholly 
 wanting. Thus, in G^ we nowhere meet with ayioq^ 
 dxovco, ttfiuQttcc, fidXXov, ndXiv, ncttfiQ, niGxig, nolvg, ncoCy 
 ^dgig. In G^ we miss aiatviog, dXXTjXog, dnaQtdvoi, dno- 
 
 ^ The argument would be still stronger, if we should follow 
 the example of the analysts of the Pentateuch, and in all cases 
 of such rare use of a word in any one of the parts should simply 
 assume that they are instances of the working over which the 
 sections have received from the hands of R. But our case is so 
 strong that we do not need to make this assumption, though it 
 might be more scientific to do so. 
 
53 
 
 y.dXvyjig, dvvafiat, t'y.aarog, x^tXrjfin, Mtgdia. JC nowhere 
 uses dyaTTaa), ddiy.tu, dvvatog, ^Qyov, nanoi;, xaX^co, xqivoj, 
 XoyiXofiai, Xoyog, vovq, oaog, TiQocaaco, nmixa, q)6^og, (pgovioi. 
 CJ never uses dXi'i&eta, dr/.atog, "EXItjv, i-^&Qog, -d-ilo), 
 lovdaTog, xofffxog, y.Qt'fia, ovofiu, oQyr], TiQaaaco, aortrjQla. 
 
 d. It is still more significant of diversity of 
 
 authorship, when for the same thought in the different 
 
 parts different words are used. Thus we find for 
 
 Accuse in Gr^ xartjyoQtco, ii. 15; CJ iyxaUta, 
 
 viii. 33. 
 
 G^ inovoftaQofiai, ii. 17 ; G^ iiaUo(xat, 
 
 ix. 26; CJ iQt]fiariXm, vii. 3. 
 G2 sXsog, ix. 23, xi. 31 ; CJ oixtiq- 
 
 [log, xii. 1. 
 G2 dianavTog, xi. 10; JC navtore, 
 
 i. 10. 
 JC imxayti, xvi. 26; G^, xiii. 9, 
 and G2, vii. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 
 ivtoXri. 
 G2 Qvofiai, vii. 24, xi. 26; QJ iXsv- 
 
 d^fQoa, vi. 18, 22, viii. 2, 21. 
 G^ KaiaqiQOvim, ii. 4; CJ i^ov&ev^m, 
 
 xiv. 3, 10. 
 G2 dmi&eia, xi. 30, 32; JC TiaQa- 
 
 y-ot], V. 19. 
 G^ tpevdog, i, 25; G^ \psvafia, iii. 7. 
 JC dvoTjtog, i. 14; G* davvBtog, i. 21, 
 
 31, and dqiQojv, ii. 20. 
 CJ dya&ttXTvvr] , xv. 14; G', ii. 4, 
 and G^, iii. 12, xi. 22, iQrjGrotrjg. 
 Hardness of heart „ G^ axXr^oozrjg, ii. 5; G^ nwqcaaigy 
 xi. 25. 
 
 Be called 
 Compassion 
 Continually 
 Command 
 
 Deliver (from sin) 
 
 Despise 
 
 Disobedience 
 
 Falsehood 
 Foolish 
 
 Goodness 
 
54 
 
 Hinder 
 
 
 in 
 
 Kill 
 
 
 r? 
 
 Likewise 
 
 
 •: 
 
 Manifest 
 
 
 ^' 
 
 Obey 
 
 
 r: 
 
 On account 
 
 of 
 
 ;? 
 
 Ordain 
 
 
 ?? 
 
 Passion 
 
 
 !? 
 
 Persevere 
 
 
 :i 
 
 Pray 
 
 
 •' 
 
 Puhlish 
 
 
 n 
 
 Recompense 
 
 
 r' 
 
 Rejoice 
 
 
 !7 
 
 Send 
 
 
 57 
 
 Speah as a 
 
 man 
 
 " 
 
 Stand 
 
 
 55 
 
 JC xroWw, i. 13; CJ tyxoTitojj xv. 22. 
 G^ (povevm, xiii. 9; .Gr^ «;zo>{Tf/»'w, 
 
 vii. 11, xi. 3; CJ ^avar6(o, vii. 4, 
 
 viii. 13, 36. 
 G^ ofioiag, i. 27; CJ (wravrco?, 
 
 viii. 26. 
 G^ cfiaregog, i. 19, ii. 28; JC 
 
 ifitfavi'jg, X. 20. 
 Gi ?re/.?a3, ii. 8; JC, x. 16, and 
 
 CJ, vi. 12, 16, 17, vTzamvo). 
 CJ fvexa, viii. 36, xiv. 20, and 
 
 dm; in the others only dm. 
 G 1 rdaao), xiii. 1 ; JC oqiTo), i. 4. 
 Gi ;rai^ot', i. 26; CJ. na&ijixa, 
 
 vii. 5. 
 G^ nQoaHUQTfQico, xii. 12, xiii. 6; 
 
 G2 imixiva, xi. 22, 23. 
 JC diofiai, i. 10; CJ TiQoaevyofiaiy 
 
 viii. 26. 
 G2 diayyaim, ix. 17 ; CJ, xv. 21, 
 
 avayyiXXm. 
 G^ ttvtifiia&ia, i. 27; G^ fita&oQy 
 
 iv. 4, and avTaTro^oiua, xi. 9. 
 G^ laiQfo, xii. 12, 15, xvi. 19; 
 
 JC £vq)Qatv(a, xv. 10. 
 JC ounocsxiXXdi , X. 15; CJ nifinaiy 
 
 viii. 3. 
 G^ Kara av&Qconov Xtyco, iii. 5 ; CJ 
 
 av&Qomtvov X^yoi, \i. 19. 
 CJ (TTjJxw, xiv. 4; G*-^, xi. 20, and 
 
 JC, V. 2, IXTTTJfll. 
 
55 
 
 Take lileasure ., Gr^ avinvdoKto), i. 32; G^ avrridofiat 
 
 vii. 22. 
 Understand ., G^ voto}, i. 20; G^, iii. 11, and 
 
 CJ, XV. 21, Gwlrjiii. 
 Walk (conduct ,, G^ aioiitb), iv. 12 ; G^ xiii. 13, and 
 one's .self) CJ,vi.4, viii.4,xiv. 15,?r«^t7r«Tt'ft). 
 
 Weak „ JC da&evi^g, v. 6; CJ dSvraro.:^ 
 
 XV. 1. 
 Where ., CJ mov, xv. 20; G^, iv. 15, ix, 
 
 26, and JC, v. 20, oi. 
 Word (of God) „ G2 loyog, iii. 4, ix. 6, 9; JC (r/7«a, 
 
 X. 8, 17. 
 e. Finally, we observe tliat vice versa the same- 
 word has in the different parts different meanings. 
 Thus, dyandto and dydni] are used by G^ only in re- 
 ference to the love of men to one another, xii. 9,. 
 xiii. 8, 9, 10; whereas G2, ix. 13, 25, JC, v. 5, 8, 
 and CJ, viii. 28, 35, 37, 39, xv. 30, use them exclu- 
 sively (except in xiv. 15) of the love of God or of 
 love to God. — As already pointed out, auQt, has 
 an ethico - religious sense only in CJ; and so its; 
 opposite nvsi'fm. — Likewise ipvx^ is used by G*y 
 ii. 9, xiii. 1, as synonymous with "person"; by G^, 
 xi. 3, and CJ, xvi. 4, in the sense of "life". — 
 Jiy.ttl(ana is used by JC, v. 16, 18, in the sense of 
 "justification"; by G', i. 32, ii. 26, and CJ, ^dii. 4, 
 in the sense of "ordinance." 
 
 The foregoing observations respecting the vo- 
 cabulary of the four writers are borne out when we 
 examine the style of the several parts, G^ is pre- 
 eminently oratorical, G^ argumentative, JC doctrinal, 
 CJ emotional. Observe how in i. 18 — ii. 29 the 
 
56 
 
 writer draws out his picture in a rich fulness of de- 
 scription which nowhere else has a parallel. The 
 direct appeal in eh. ii. is a fine specimen of rhe- 
 torical address, such as occurs in no other part of 
 the Epistle. G-2 on the other hand delights in 
 arguing a proposition wliich the reader is conceived 
 to be disinclined to accept. Ch. iv. is devoted to 
 an argument derived from Abraham's faith. Chh. ix. 
 and xi. are nothing but debates with objectors, 
 the objections being often put into the mouth of 
 the reader (see ix. 14, 19, xi. 1, 19). JC is neither 
 oratorical nor argumentative. He occupies liimself 
 chiefly in stating the doctrine of justification by faith. 
 He introduces it, after gettiaig through with liis pre- 
 face, at i. 16, 17, repeats it in a fuller form in iii. 
 21 — 26, and enlarges on it still more in v. 1 — 21. 
 In all this there is no argument, and no appeal, 
 but rather a dogmatic statement of the doctrine of 
 salvation through Christ. In the remainder of what 
 we have from JC we find, it is true, especially in 
 ix. 1 — 5 , an expression of feeling. But even here 
 there is no direct appeal or address, and he at once 
 passes (x. 1 — 21) to an unimpassioned statement of 
 the conditions of salvation, and of the obstinacy of 
 the Jews with reference to the gospel. Finally, in 
 CJ we discern a still different style. In a certain 
 sense we may say that he unites in himself all the 
 features which we have severally ascribed to the 
 other three. He is oratorical in viii. 31 — 39; he is 
 argumentative in vi. 1 — 3, 15, 16; he is dogmatic 
 in viii. 1 — 4. But through all this there runs a 
 vein which makes CJ's style distinct from them aU. 
 
57 
 
 We have called it an emotional element. The sub- 
 jects are treated of as if by one who is unfolding 
 the treasui'es of a deep experience. He states his 
 doctrine; but the point of it all is in the setting 
 forth of the deliverance and the blessednes of which 
 the Christian has been made partaker. He is elo- 
 quent, but it is eloquence wliich gushes up out of 
 a sense of personal salvation. He can argue, but 
 it is only for the sake of impressing on his readers 
 the reality of the liberty and the security which 
 they enjoy. 
 
 The difference between the four writers in re- 
 spect of style ma}^ be otherwise stated as follows: 
 G^ is psychological; Gr^ is historical; JC is didactic; 
 CJ is hortatory. Gr^ sets forth the workings of 
 conscience, of sinful passion, of deceitful self-right- 
 eousness. G^ illustrates his arguments from his- 
 torical facts. JC labors to indoctrinate his readers 
 by repetition and amplification. CJ even in his 
 doctrinal part makes his practical aim obvious, and 
 he follows it up with an extended series of exhor- 
 tations (xii. 1 — 8, xiii. 14 — xv. 7). 
 
 These are general statements which might be 
 illustrated in detail. But it will suffice to have 
 called attention to the salient points in the style of 
 the several writers. The reader can verify our 
 statements for himself. 
 
 Taking now all these various linguistic features 
 together, and observing that they all point in the 
 same direction; furthermore, bearing in mind that 
 they confirm the previous argument from the con- 
 tents of the Epistle, one can scarcely longer enter- 
 
58 
 
 tain a doubt that our main ^ii'oposition is demon- 
 strated. 
 
 The foregoing analysis had been elaborated even 
 to its fullest details before the publication of Volter's 
 treatise on the composition of the chief Pauline 
 Epistles. Inasmuch as he undertakes a similar crit- 
 ical analysis, and also finds the Epistle to the 
 Romans to have been the w^ork of several authors, 
 but comes to a decidedly different result from ours, 
 it may seem as if such a difference in the residt 
 casts some discredit upon the whole effort to trace 
 the composition of the Epistle by the critical 
 method. But such a disagreement proves only that 
 not both of the results can be correct. Whether 
 Volter's analysis or that which we have presented 
 is the correct one must be left to the reader's 
 judgment. 
 
 Volter, though he regards all of the Epistle to 
 the Gralatians as spurious, strangely enough holds 
 some of the Epistle to the Romans to be really 
 Pauline, viz., i. 1*, 7, 5, 6, 8—17; v. 1—12, 15—19, 
 21; vi. 1—13, 16—23; xii. 1— xiii. 14; xv. 14—32; 
 xvi. 21 — 23. For this view he gives no better reason 
 than that Steck's objections do not touch those parts 
 of the Epistle which he holds to be genuine. Wliat 
 is stranger still, he assigns to Paul a large part of 
 precisely those portions which we have shown to 
 belong to the two latest writers, JC and CJ. Then, 
 on the ground of certain differences in the concep- 
 tion and presentation of the topics, he enucleates 
 six interpolators, among whom he distributes the 
 rest of the Epistle. It would be strange if he had 
 
59 
 
 not in many particulars coincided with us in our 
 division. Thus, he detaches vii. 7 — 25 from its con- 
 nection and assigns it to the third interpolator. Also 
 he separates iii. 21 sqq. from the foregoing, though 
 he makes the section extend to iv. 25. Again, xv. 7 — 13 
 is recognised as not belonging where it is found , thus 
 agreeing with us, except that verse 7 is unaccount- 
 ably included in the section, though it manifestly 
 belongs with the foregoing^. 
 
 It is almost incredible that ch. vi, should be 
 dissevered from ch. viii. , and one reason given for 
 the separation should be that the Christology is 
 different, since in viii. 32 Christ is called Grod's own 
 Son, and is conceived as pre-existent (p. 59). But 
 Christ is called God's Son also in the Pauline part, 
 V. 10. A similar infelicity occurs on p. 77, where 
 the second interpolator is distinguished from Paul 
 as making Jesus' resurrection the starting - point, 
 whereas Paul makes Jesus' death the immediate 
 object of faith — this, in the face of iii. 25, which 
 he assigns to the interpolator ! The treatise is full 
 of similar fallacies; and the argument turns largely 
 on subtle distinctions to maintain which single verses 
 are arbitrarily ejected (e. g., vi. 14, 15). But we 
 
 ^ For the convenience of those who may not have access 
 to Volter's work, we may here give the results of his analysis. 
 After eliminating the above mentioned pai-ts ascribed to Paul, the 
 remainder is divided as follows: (1) i. lb — 4; i. 18 — ii. 13; ii. 
 IG — iii. 20; viii. 1, 3 — 39. (2) iii. 21— iv. 25; v. 13, 14, 20; 
 vi. 14, 15; vii. 1— G; ix. 1— x. 21; xiv. 1— xv. 6. (3) vii. 7—25; 
 viii, 2. (4) xi. 1—36; xv. 7—13. {h) ii. 14, 15. (6) xvi. 1—20, 
 24, 25—27. 
 
60 
 
 cannot undertake to criticise the work in detail, 
 being assured that the best refutation of it will be 
 a candid examination of the preceding analysis. 
 
 Having now presented the dogmatic and the 
 linguistic arguments, it remains to consider the 
 historical argument. First, however, we may fortify 
 the ground already gained by a comparison of our 
 work with that which has been done in Old Testa- 
 ment criticism. Our analysis , being wholly in accord- 
 ance with the most approved critical methods , con- 
 firms, and is confirmed by, the results of criticism in 
 other connections. Particularly it is interesting to 
 notice how here, as in the case of the Pentateuch, a 
 diversity in the use of the divine names (reckoning 
 the names of the Redeemer among them) was the 
 first clew which suggested the analysis, while here 
 as there this clew led to the discovery of other 
 more fundamental differences, viz., those which 
 characterise the general cast of doctrinal thought, 
 and finally these two coincident indications are 
 found to be confirmed by the general linguistic pe- 
 culiarities of the several sections. 
 
 In some respects our analysis may be pro- 
 nounced even more thoroughly grounded than that 
 of the Pentateuch. For there the distinction in the 
 use of the divine names prevails only through Gen- 
 esis and a small part of Exodus; afterwards other 
 criteria have to be depended on. In Romans, how- 
 ever, the criterion can be applied throughout the 
 entire book. Moreover, when we consider the 
 differences of doctrinal type, the distinction between 
 G\ G2, JC, and CJ is so clear and radical that it 
 
61 
 
 is obvious to every one as soon as it is once de- 
 tected and stated. The ethico- legal position of G^ 
 cannot be mistaken for the mystical one of CJ. 
 G^'s doctrine of faith in God's sovereign decree is 
 very diiferent from JC's doctrine of faith in Christ's 
 atoning death. These differences, be it noticed, appear 
 in the treatment of the same general theme; they 
 run deep; and they are clearly marked. The dis- 
 tinctions between the doctrines of the diiferent 
 writers of the Pentateuch, however, are by no means 
 so important and are not always clearly made out 
 at all. That this is the case is natural enough, to 
 be sure, considering the general subject of which 
 the Pentateuch treats. But our comparison holds. 
 For example, when the two narrators of the flood 
 are distinguished, the distinction is not one that can 
 be verified by the adducing of diiferences in the 
 general point of view or in the conception of the 
 facts. To be sure, P (Gen. vi. 19) makes Noah 
 bring in tivo of every kind of animals, while J 
 (vii. 2, 3) makes him bring in seven pairs of the clean 
 animals; but otherwise there is no clearly - defined 
 difference between P and J in their representation 
 of facts or their conception of God. And even the 
 distinction respecting the animals is somewhat con- 
 fused by the fact that in vii. 7 — 9 is an account 
 which appears to be Elohistic, and yet apparently 
 tries to blend the Elohistic description (vi. 19, 20) 
 with the Jehovistic (vii. 2, 3), and has therefore 
 to be assigned to the Redactor. Similarly in disen- 
 tangling the three writers from whom the account 
 of the Egyptian plagues has been compiled it is 
 
62 
 
 difficult to find any criteria that are so marked and 
 uniformly found as to make unmistakable the source 
 of the several parts. Captious objectors i, therefore, 
 can often seem to throw considerable discredit on 
 the analysis, impregnable as it must appear to all 
 open and candid minds. 
 
 So again, as regards the chronological order of 
 the several parts, our hypothesis respecting the 
 Epistle to the Romans must command unhesitating- 
 assent even from those who might question the re- 
 sults of the latest criticism of the Old Testament. 
 It hardly needs an argument to prove that G-i must 
 have written before Gr^. He represents simply re- 
 formed Judaism , emphasising the duty of keeping 
 the law, but meaning thereby the moral law rather 
 than the ceremonial. Gr^, who tells of a justification 
 that is to be secured apart from the law, must re- 
 present a later phase of Jewish - Christian thinking. 
 Men had begun to find out that the law could not 
 practically be obeyed in its strictness; and they 
 looked for some method of relief, and found it in a 
 divine act of justification conditioned on faith in God. 
 This faith could not at first have had Jesus, a mere 
 man, for its object; and consequently JC, who agrees 
 with Gr^ in emphasising the importance of faith, but 
 
 ^ Like Prof. W. H. Green, Pentateuch Analysis (in Essays 
 on Pintateuchal Criticism by various Writers, New York 1888). 
 It may be added to the foregoing considerations , that in our anal- 
 ysis of Romans there is much less of minute chopping up of 
 the text into small parts than in the analysis of the Pentateuch. 
 And we do not find it necessary to make so much use of R in 
 accounting for phenomena that make against our hypothesis. 
 
63 
 
 makes the atoning Christ the object of that faith, 
 must have come still later, when Jesus had begun 
 to receive divine honours. And CJ, with his mys- 
 tical notion of spiritual union between Christ and 
 the Christian — a conception in which the Old Te- 
 stament notion of sacrifice (still found, though ideal- 
 ised, in JC) is completely lost — marks a still later 
 form of the development of Christian doctrine. No 
 intelligent man could seriously think of changing 
 this order. It is deduced from what obviously must 
 have been the natural process of evolution. 
 
 The current view of critics respecting the chron- 
 ological order of the Old Testament books also has 
 regard to what the natural process of evolution 
 must have been. The analysis , it is true , may be 
 insisted on as indisputably correct, even down to 
 WeUhausen's J\ J2, js, Q\ Q2^ Q3, etc. But it may 
 still be argued that possibly the authors wrote in 
 a different order from that which is now commonly 
 assumed. The present theory respecting the order 
 differs widely from that which prevailed at first; 
 and among those who accept the critical partition 
 there are still very many who contend that P cannot 
 have been so late a development as Wellhausen and 
 others suppose. It is at least not self-evident that 
 the Levitical ritual must have been the latest out- 
 come of the religious history of the nation. The 
 apparent contempt for all ceremonial reKgion express- 
 ed by Jeremiah and the Second Isaiah would hardly 
 seem to be a natural precursor of the introduction 
 of a ceremonial system so elaborate as that of the 
 Priestly Code. To be sure , there comes in here 
 
64 
 
 the evidence of liistory and the ritual proclivities 
 of tlie Books of Chronicles, to confirm the theory 
 that formalism did follow rather than precede the 
 prophetic period. The books of Judges, Samuel, 
 and Kings, it would seem, make it clear that before 
 the Exile little or nothing was known of the Le- 
 vitical Code. The books of Chronicles, written 
 about 300 B. C, e\adently try to reconstruct history 
 so as to make it conform to the newl}' issued 
 Priestly Code. Consequently the order of develop- 
 ment assumed in the now dominant hypothesis may 
 seem to be proved to be the actual one. 
 
 But what after all hinders any one from put- 
 ting the dates of the books of Judges, Samuel, and 
 Kings even later than 300 B. C. , and so making 
 them, rather than the Chronicles, the last product 
 of the religious evolution ? The mere fact that those 
 books do not bring history down so far as the 
 Chronicles do, proves of course nothing; for we can 
 assume that these books (as it is commonly assumed 
 that the Chronicles) were written for the very pur- 
 pose of reconstructing history. In that case we 
 should have to assume that the author deliberately 
 endeavoured to make the impression of being an 
 older writer than the author of the Chronicles, and 
 wrote for the purpose of representing the Israelites 
 from the time of Joshua on to have been much less. 
 ritualistic than the Chronicles had pictured them. 
 
 Should it be objected that the prophetic books, 
 belonging to the very centre of the period in ques- 
 tion, agree for substance with Samuel and Kings 
 rather than with Chronicles, the answer is near at 
 
65 
 
 hand. Wliat is the evidence that the prophetical 
 books are not also the product of the latest period 
 of the development? May not the same school of 
 writers from which emanated the books of Samuel 
 and Kings have also written the prophetical books'? 
 Of many of the prophets we know absolutely nothing 
 but that certain writings are ascribed to them. 
 Tradition may have preserved the names of some; 
 and they themselves having left no writings, these 
 reformers of the post -exilic period may have pro- 
 duced writings in the form of prophecies and as- 
 cribed them to this or that one of the old prophets ; 
 in other cases they may have invented both the 
 name and the writings. 
 
 No one can find any difficulty with this hypoth- 
 esis on the ground that writers of so late a period 
 could not have so well simulated the appearance of 
 having written four or five hundred years earlier. 
 Every one knows that the Hexateuch was composed 
 an equal length of time after the date at which it 
 purports to have been produced; and yet it is in- 
 disputable, as the orthodox apologists are not slow 
 to point out, that the authors succeeded marvel- 
 lously in giving the work the colouring of the period 
 just following the exodus. Nor can there be any 
 moral scruple in the one case more than in the 
 other. And the upshot is simply that all the Old 
 Testament, instead of a large part of it, is thus made 
 to be substantially a fiction. Of course a thread of 
 historical truth runs through it. The list of kings, 
 and many historical events, may have been derived 
 from a fairly trustworthy tradition. That this is 
 
66 
 
 the case is shown by the confirmatory records of 
 Assyria recently unearthed. But in so far as the 
 books have a religious character, what is to hinder 
 one's making them all the product of pious fiction? 
 The poetical books are such at any rate, unless we 
 except some of the Psalms; and certainly the most 
 of these are fictitiously ascribed to David and others 
 who did not write them. Criticism has discovered 
 that the most or all of them were written during 
 the Maccabean period or after. Thus we have the 
 great advantage that no sharp line of distinction 
 can be drawn between two classes of books — the 
 genuine and the spurious. All are made to stand 
 on the same plane, and all therefore can be judged 
 on their own merits. The most recent criticism has 
 readied this result as regards the New Testament. 
 And there is an obvious advantage, as Steck^ for- 
 cibly observes, in not having a Bible made up in 
 part of genuine, and in part of spurious, books. In 
 such a case, he says, the latter are at a disadvantage 
 as compared with the others, whereas if it is once 
 recognised to have been the way of those times to 
 write pseud onymously and fictitiously, all unpleasant 
 impressions are removed; all the books are alike 
 worthy of honour. At present, however. Old Testa- 
 ment criticism stands about where the Tubingen 
 school stood as regards the New Testament. A part 
 of the Testament is accepted as substantially authentic 
 and genuine, in order by means of it to prove the 
 spuriousness and untrustworthiness of the rest. It 
 
 Der GalaUrbrief, p. 385. 
 
j67 
 
 being assumed that Judges , Samuel, and Kings can 
 be depended on as for substance genuine history, , 
 and that the prophetical writings for the most part 
 were produced at the time claimed for them, these 
 books are made the touchstone for testing the value 
 of all the others. This has been done without any 
 thorough critical examination of the books assumed 
 to be genuine, just as Baur and his school accepted 
 the first four Pauline Epistles as undoubtedly gen- 
 uine without any serious effort to sift the question 
 of their genuineness. 
 
 The most recent criticism ^ however, is showing 
 that the conflict between the Judaistic and Pauline 
 parties, though real, reached its culmination a cen- 
 tury after Paul's time , that Paul himself was not 
 so obnoxious to Jewish Christians as has been sup- 
 posed, and that therefore the so-called Pauline Epis- 
 tles are all to be referred to the second century. 
 Just so it may be argued that the conflict between 
 ritualism and a freer religion in the Old Covenant 
 did not reach its climax till some time after the 
 captivity, and that then there sprang up a series of 
 books on each side 2. On the side of the ritualistic 
 
 1 See Steok, Der Galaterbrief, pp. 371—382. 
 
 2 Substantially this view of the late origin of all the histor- 
 ical and prophetical books has been advanced by certain French 
 critics. E. g. Ernest Havet, Le Chris tianisme ei ses Origines, Tom 
 8, Preface, p. vii,, says that, so far from needing to assume the 
 genuineness of the prophetical books, "one can with more plausi- 
 bility suppose that they had their origin in the contest of the 
 Jews with the kings of Syria in the second century before our 
 era". Similarly Maurice Vernes, Une nouvelU hypothese sur la com' 
 
 5* 
 
68 
 
 party there were produced the legislative books of 
 Exodus , Le\'iticus , and Numbers (at least the bulk 
 of what now constitutes those books), the historical 
 books of Joshua, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 
 Esther, and the prophetical books of Haggai, the 
 first part of Zechariah, Malachi, and the latter part 
 of Ezekiel. On the side of the more liberal party 
 there were produced the historical books of G-enesis, 
 Deutoronomy, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings, 
 and the larger part of the prophetical and poetical 
 books. Then of course there was a mediating party ; 
 and to this party may be ascribed the intermingling 
 of opposite elements in many of the books, as in 
 Exodus, Deutoronomy, Joshua, Ezekiel, and to some 
 extent in the Psahns (cf , e. g., Ps. li. 16, 17 with 
 verses 18, 19) and Jeremiah (e. g., vii. 21 — 26 cannot 
 have come from the same author as xvii. 26). Now 
 as in the history of the Christian Church the freer, 
 or Pauline, party ultimately gained the upper hand, 
 so it may be presumed that in the Jewish Church 
 the more liberal, or at least the mediating, party 
 finally gained the ascendency. But the most natural 
 order would be first the reign of formalism, next 
 the reaction in favor of freedom. And accordingly 
 it may be argued that the now prevalent \dew as 
 to the order of the production of the Old Testament 
 books needs a revision. 
 
 But it may be said that this mixing together 
 of the different and even contradictory productions 
 
 position et I'origine du Deuteroiiome. 1887. L. Horst, Etudes sur 
 h Daiterotiome in the Revue de I'histoire des religions. 1888. 
 
of Old Testament piety cannot easily be accounted 
 for, provided they sprang up so nearly together. 
 One would suppose that they must, from the neces- 
 sity of the case, by the mutual hostility of the 
 parties, have been kept distinct. But such an ob- 
 jection overlooks the peculiarity of the religious 
 mind of those times. All writings which appeared 
 laying claim to the character of inspired, prophetic, 
 authoritative Scriptures were accepted as such, what- 
 ever may have been their particular religious di'iffc. 
 They were put side by side, or even intermingled 
 with one another, and the contradictions apparently 
 not recognised except by those who wrote them. 
 Evidently the Jews of Christ's time had no con- 
 ception of the self-contradictory character of their 
 sacred books; and as little did the Christians in 
 general of the times of Irenaeus and Origen have 
 any conception of the essential irreconcilableness of 
 the different books of the New Testament. Nothing, 
 therefore, was easier than to introduce a new book 
 into the list of authoritative writings. 
 
 It may possibly be objected to this suggestion 
 of ours respecting the date of the historic and pro- 
 phetical books, that the Greek translation of the 
 Old Testament was begun at least as early as 
 250 B. C. , and that therefore it is hardly conceiv- 
 able that between 300 (the date of the Chronicles) 
 and the beginning of this translation these books 
 of the freer party could have sprung up. But it is 
 not necessary to suppose that all of them originated 
 in this short time. The conflict must have been 
 longer than this. Nothing hinders our supposing 
 
70 
 
 that Genesis, for instance, was written not long 
 after the introduction of the Le\dtical Code, and 
 with it the Jeho^dstic parts of Exodus. On either 
 side piece by piece the legislation and the history 
 came out, the liberal party always matching the 
 works of the formalists with something designed to 
 counteract their influence, the books of Chronicles 
 being at last followed by Samuel and Kings. No 
 one knows when the translation was completed. But 
 it is not at all necessar}'^ to assume that a long 
 time must have intervened between the production 
 and the reception of the books. Being set forth as 
 ancient and divinely inspired documents, they were 
 almost immediately accepted as such. Any one who 
 can believe (as nearly all the critics do believe) 
 that the book of Deutoronomy could have been 
 acknowledged as of divine authority as soon as it 
 was promulgated, though it had only just been 
 gotten up by the prophetical party, can find no 
 difficulty in supposing that all the other books had 
 a similar origin and a similar prompt recognition. 
 
 But, it may be said, this very book of Deu- 
 toronomy is the one which the critics declare to 
 have been "found", i.e., composed, in the reign of 
 Josiah, and that therefore this book at least must 
 have been older than the time of the exile. But 
 the objector forgets that this story about the finding 
 of the book occurs in a history which we now as- 
 sume to have been composed about 275 B. C. , and 
 which is for the most part a fictitious history. This 
 story about the finding of the law is one of the 
 fictions. That the book referred to was our present 
 
71 
 
 book of Deutoronomy is a mere assumption. Wheth- 
 er the author of the story meant it to refer to 
 that book or to something else, no one can tell, 
 and it is useless to discuss the question, so long as 
 we regard the story itself as apocryphal i. 
 
 But this is somewhat of a digression; and it 
 also to some extent anticipates what more properly 
 comes into our next chapter, where we must con- 
 sider some questions relating to historical evidence. 
 
 ^ Inasmuch as the same story is found also in the Chron- 
 icles, our hypothesis requires us to suppose that the author of 
 Kings bon-owed the story from tlie Chronicles. The fact that it 
 is found in both books, while yet both authors cannot be sup- 
 posed to have had Deutoronomy in mind (the Chronicler of counse 
 meaning his readers to suppose the found book to be the Levitical 
 code), shows how futile it is to speculate on that point. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 
 
 JiiSTORiCAL facts are often set over against the 
 results of critical inspection , and the conclusion is 
 drawn that the actual must rule out the hypothet- 
 ical, when they are in conflict. Of course. But 
 we must take pains to form clear conceptions as to 
 what the antithesis of actual and theoretical really 
 amounts to. If it should be affirmed that the fore- 
 going argumentation is a mere hypothesis, or even 
 a capricious conceit, in support of which no discov- 
 erable historical fact can be adduced, we answer: 
 This despised argumentation consists in the presen- 
 tation of facts — the fact that the Epistle to the 
 Romans evidently contains four distinct types of 
 doctrine, and the fact that the linguistic charac- 
 teristics of the Epistle correspond to this fourfold 
 division. These facts constitute the basis of the 
 argument. If now it is affirmed that it is after all 
 not demonstrated that four different men were con- 
 cerned in the production of the book, we can only 
 
73 
 
 rejoin that such a method of reasoning , logically 
 carried out, would put an end to all scientific judg- 
 ments. For instance what is geology but a combina- 
 tion of theories on the basis of certain obsei'\'-ed 
 facts? The science comes from the application of 
 theory to fact. So long as we stop with the bare 
 isolated facts, we have no science. So with chem- 
 istry. Men observe certain changes, the effect of 
 certain combinations, and by degrees come to make 
 hypotheses concerning various atoms, or invisible 
 particles, which are assumed to lie at the basis of 
 the observed phenomena. Just so in the examina- 
 tion of a book. A book is not scientifically under- 
 stood, when one has merely seen the forms of the 
 letters, or has learned to pronounce the words, or 
 even to make out the meaning of the individual 
 sentences. One must look at the book in its con- 
 nection, must discover the leading thought and gen- 
 eral aim of the book, must penetrate into the spirit 
 and intent of the author, and get an insight into 
 the history of the origin of the book, before one 
 can be said to have understood it scientifically. If 
 now our theory of the Epistle to the Romans does 
 not correspond to known facts or fails to account 
 for them ; if, rather, a different theory enables one to 
 get a more scientific knowledge of the Epistle, very 
 well. In both cases, however, we begin with ac- 
 knowledged facts, and in both cases we end with a 
 — hypothesis. 
 
 What then is meant when men talk of the his- 
 torical arguments which are supposed to be so fatal 
 to our theory? Primarily, no doubt, they have in 
 
74 
 
 mind the traditional reports concerning the early 
 history of the Christian Church; and they imagine 
 that these reports make the Pauline authorship ot 
 the Epistle certain — so certain that no critical 
 insight can be competent to overthrow it. What is 
 to be said to this? Simply that these supposed 
 facts of history, like all others, must be examined, 
 in order to determine what really is actual in them. 
 In other words, criticism must deal with the alleged 
 historic facts as well as with the book. In both 
 cases we must first ask, what is the fact? and next, 
 what is the explanation and meaning of it? 
 
 Moreover, we should remember that it is easier 
 to find out what is actual in the book in question 
 than to find out the exact truth of the history in 
 question. The book is before us, and has definite, 
 unmistakable traits. The liistorical testnnonies con- 
 cerning the authorship of it are much less definite 
 and unambiguous. Every tiling depends on when 
 and by whom the testimonies were written. This 
 must first be investigated before we can attach any 
 weight to them. But it is no trifling work to pen- 
 etrate through two thousand years in order to test 
 the value of these alleged testimonies. It cannot be 
 simply taken for granted that the alleged witnesses 
 are the real witnesses, or that they are as old as 
 conunonly supposed. If we are told that tradition 
 vouches for the genuineness of the testimonies , we 
 can only answer that the origin and worth of tliis 
 tradition must be critically examined before we can 
 accept it as authoritative. And in this examination 
 criticism must make use of its own insight and its 
 
75 
 
 hypotheses, precisely as it must with the Epistle 
 to the Romans itself. 
 
 No doubt, tradition affirms the Pauline author- 
 ship of the Epistle in question. But no less has 
 tradition affirmed the Mosaic authorship of the Pen- 
 tateuch and the Johannean authorship of the Fourth 
 Gospel. But ivhat vouches for the tradition? It, too, 
 must ultimately submit to critical inspection and 
 critical judgment. 
 
 When, now, we consider the Epistle to the 
 Romans in the light of the historical questions con- 
 nected with it, we may in the first place claim that 
 our conception of it, instead of being in conflict 
 with history, is particularly fitted to solve the his- 
 torical problems which have beset the traditional 
 view. For example, whole Kbraries have been pro- 
 duced in the effort to settle the question, whether 
 the Epistle was written to a Jewish-Christian, or a 
 Gentile-Christian, church. And really, as the Epistle 
 reads, it is no easy matter to answer the question; 
 for both views are favoured by it. In other words, 
 the several writers had different readers in mind 
 when they wrote. G' and G^ seem to have been 
 Jewish Christians, and wrote for readers of the same 
 class, as may be seen from such passages as ii. 17, 
 24 — 29, iv. 1. It is true, G^ apparently had a 
 mixed congregation in mind ; ix. 22 — 24 sounds even 
 as if the readers were regarded as converts from 
 heathenism. But a closer examination shows that 
 when the writer says, "us, whom he also called, 
 not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles", 
 he regards the readers as preponderantly Jewish 
 
76 
 
 Christians. The same is to be said of xi. 13, where 
 G* does not mean to imply that his readers are all 
 Gentiles, but rather, because the most of them are 
 not such, he singles out the Grentile part particu- 
 larly, and says, "I speak to [those of] you who are 
 Grentiles". True, he emphasises the fact that the 
 Jews in general have rejected the gospel; but this 
 does not indicate that the church addressed did not 
 consist mostly of Christian Jews. 
 
 JC , on the other hand , regards his readers as 
 chiefly Gentiles. This must be the impression which 
 he makes on every one who reads this part alone, 
 and is not fettered by the notion that the Epistle 
 was all written by one man. When, therefore, 
 Mangold 1 argues, with great ability and ingenuity, 
 that Rom. i. 6, 13, 15 can be so interpreted as not 
 to imply that the readers are conceived as mostly 
 Gentile Christians, every one must see that he is 
 contending against the obvious meaning of the pas- 
 sages. From his point of view he is doubtless cor- 
 rect. K the Epistle was written by one man, these 
 passages may most naturally have to be interpreted 
 in accordance with others which clearly point to 
 Jewish Christians as the readers. But when we 
 take JC alone, we find no clear indication that he 
 is addressing himself particularly to Jewish Chris- 
 tians. He takes for granted, of course, that his 
 readers are acquainted with Jewish history and the 
 relation of Judaism to Christianity. Assuming the 
 
 ' Der Romerbrief tiud seine geschichtlich',n Voraussetzungen, 
 1884, p. 165, sqq. 
 
77 
 
 name of Paul, he calls the Jews his "brethren" 
 (ix, 3), and discourses at length concerning the at- 
 titude taken by the Jews towards the gospel. At 
 X. 1 the "brethren" whom he addresses are different 
 from the Jews about whom he is speaking. K one 
 should object that just so G^ at xi. 25, when he 
 addresses his readers as "brethren", must regard 
 them as Grentiles, we must remember, what was ob- 
 served above, that he is now expressly addressing 
 the Gentile minority of his readers (xi. 13). 
 
 As to CJ the case is somewhat different. For 
 the most part, he says nothing which indicates 
 whether his readers are conceived to be Jews or 
 Gentiles. But the passage on which Mangold par- 
 ticularly relies (vii. 4 — 6) for the proof of his view 
 is found in CJ; and it may be that in this passage 
 there is reference to the Mosaic law. What he says 
 in vi. 14, 15, inasmuch as vofiog is without the ar- 
 ticle, may be understood generally. And in vii. 1 
 vofiog is anarthrous also; and it is possible to as- 
 sume that, when he afterwards uses the article, he 
 has in mind "the law" in its wider aspect. But this 
 question may be left unsettled. 
 
 The main point here urged is that according 
 to our view of the case this whole contention about 
 the nationality of the readers of the Epistle is set 
 aside. The truth is, we do not know to whom any 
 part of the letter was written, or whether, strictly 
 speaking, the several parts were ever sent to any- 
 body. They were simply written by men who wished 
 them to be regarded as letters that had been ad- 
 dressed to somebody. Evidently, then, these doc- 
 
78 
 
 Tiineuts throw no light on the question, what the 
 original Roman church was fifty or a hundred years 
 before these writings were produced ; and it is there- 
 fore idle to attempt to harmonize the several parts 
 of the letter in order to settle a question which can 
 he settled only by genuine historical documents, not 
 by pseudonymic inventions. 
 
 Just so with reference to the much debated 
 point, why Paul, who had never seen the Romans, 
 should have addressed to them his most elaborate 
 letter. When once we have come to see that Paul 
 never wrote this letter, and probably never wrote 
 any, the question is answered ; and there is no further 
 need of solving a mystery which does not exist. 
 
 Our view disposes of several other questions 
 concerning which learned scholars have beat their 
 brains. For example, the question, when and where 
 Paul wrote this and other letters; the question, 
 whether the utterances of the letters can be recon- 
 ciled with those of the Acts ; the question, how the 
 doctrines of the several letters are to be reconciled 
 with one another, etc., etc. It is obvious that these 
 are all factitious difficulties. If Paul never wrote 
 any letters at all, we are relieved of the task of 
 deciding when and why and where he wrote them; 
 and quite as little do we need to harmonize the 
 doctrines of one of the letters .with those of the 
 others. It is clear that this is a great simplification 
 of the problem of the historical inquirer. 
 
 Still certain questions will press upon some 
 minds, and we must attend to them. 
 
 1. Why may we not assume that at least one 
 
79 
 
 of the four writers of the so-called Epistle to the 
 Romans was really Paul? Of course four different 
 men could not each have been the Apostle; but one 
 of them might have been. 
 
 This is certainly an admissible question. But 
 which of the four shall we select? One might at 
 first blush think of JC ; for he alone expressly calls 
 himself Paul. But manifestly this proves nothing, 
 if the writing is pseudonymous, especially as G^ 
 and CJ also, though they do not use the name, yet 
 evidently wish to be thought to be the Apostle 
 (cf. xi. 1, XV. 22 — 32, xvi. 1 sqq.) And if the 
 omitted introductions were extant, we should pro- 
 bably find that all four of the writers (at least these 
 three) call themselves Paul. In Gr^ alone, as his 
 part of the Epistle has been preserved, do we fail 
 to find something which appears to involve a claim 
 of Pauline authorship. 
 
 Yet G-^ is the very one, if any one of the four, 
 who must be called Paul the Apostle. For, as we 
 have shown, he must have been the earliest of the 
 four writers; and no one supposes him to have 
 written before the time of Paul. As we have made 
 it clear that by far the greater part of the Epistle 
 is not Pauline, and that this greater part contains 
 just what is now-a-days called Paulinism, whereas 
 G^'s doctrine is just the opposite, probably few can 
 be found who will care to identify G^ with the great 
 Apostle. But even G^'s doctrine is probably more 
 developed than that of Paul himself could have been. 
 If it is true, as it may be, that Paul was originally 
 a zealous Pharisee, then as a Christian he can have 
 
been only a modified Pharisee, since all sudden and 
 radical changes are contrary to the laws of evolu- 
 tion. His conversion, therefore, could have consisted 
 only in his recognising Jesus as an estimable teacher 
 of the law and in his learning to attach less weight 
 to the outward form, and more to the inward es- 
 sence, of the law. 
 
 It is true that even many of the more advanced 
 critics have undertaken to show how Paul could 
 have turned a complete theological somerset. But 
 we cannot allow ourselves to be swayed by the in- 
 consistencies of even the greatest scholars. Those 
 who champion the regularity of the course of nature 
 and reject all miracles, all sudden metamorphoses, 
 no matter how well attested, cut but a sorry figure 
 when they undertake to set forth how Saul of Tarsus 
 may all of a sudden have been transformed from an 
 ardent defender of the law into an open enemy of 
 it^ K they had not supposed that the so-called 
 Pauline Epistles were really genuine, and that there- 
 fore they must somehow adjust inconsistent things 
 to one another, they would never have belied their 
 own principles in this way. We have got beyond 
 
 ^ Examples of these effoits may be seen in Pfleiderer's 
 UrchHstenthum, pp. 32—43, and Hausrath's article on Paulus in 
 Schenkel's BibcUexicon. In liis earlier work, Der Apostel Faulus, 
 Hausrath was disposed to throw aside the narrative of Paul's 
 conversion as found in Acts, and undertook to account for the 
 conversion in a psychological way without any vision. Pfleiderer's 
 aim is to show that not the vision led to the convei-sion (as the 
 N. T. represents), but that the conversion led to the vision. But 
 if thus the whole point of the Biblical naiTative can be so sum- 
 maaily set aside, why believe in any kind of vision at all ? 
 
81 
 
 all this, and are able to consider the question im- 
 partially. And an impartial view of the matter 
 must lead us to affirm that not only not the greater 
 part, but no part, of the Epistle to the Romans 
 was written by Paul. 
 
 2. But we shall probably continue to hear the 
 changes rung on the old allegation that from the 
 earliest times on there never has been any doubt of 
 the Pauline authorship of this Epistle. And we 
 shall be told, too, that these Epistles, especially 
 those to the Corinthians and the Galatians, bear 
 the marks of genuineness in themselves, that one 
 cannot but detect in them the utterances of a single 
 person, that the allusions to the history and cir- 
 cumstances of Paul's time are so numerous, so na- 
 tural, so manifestly unfictitious, and the coincidences 
 between them and the narratives in the Acts so 
 occult and yet so striking when brought out , that 
 it is quite inconceivable that this could all have 
 been composed a century after Paul's time. 
 
 Well, this sounds plausible enough. And in- 
 deed it is questionable whether such a feat could 
 now be performed. The times are changed. On the 
 one hand the writers of two thousand years ago 
 seem to have been more able and skilful in literary 
 fiction than those of the present day; and on the 
 other hand the people seem then to have been more 
 easUy deceived than now. Of this the Gospels 
 present a striking example. Every intelligent man 
 knows that the account of Jesus' character and Hfe 
 which we there find must have been fictitious. We 
 have there the picture of an entirely unique person, 
 
 6 
 
82 
 
 combining in liimseK human and divine qualities, 
 His life and career are likewise unique. The mi- 
 raculous runs through the whole and seems to be 
 an essential part of it. The various and even op- 
 posite traits in the picture so blend together and 
 seem to be so in harmony with one another that 
 one believes almost in spite of liimself that the his- 
 tory must have been an actual one. When we con- 
 sider that four different narrators (in reality doubt- 
 less many more than four) , in spite of important 
 discrepancies in matters of detail, yet leave on us 
 the impression that they are discoursing of a real 
 ■and altogether extraordinary person, we cannot but 
 be astonished at the ability and skill with which 
 the description has been executed. The best proof 
 of this ability and skill of the writers and redactors 
 who have produced the evangelical narrative is the 
 simple fact that the iiistory has been believed so 
 long and so widely. Nevertheless, since it is certain 
 that, according to the established principles of modern 
 science, miracles are a nonentity, and that such a 
 supernatural and extraordinary person as the Jesus 
 of the Gospels never could have existed, we must 
 simply insist that the evangelical story is the prod- 
 uct of a creative fancy. If now this ca be affirm- 
 ed respecting this greater matter, all the easier is 
 it to be believed that the Pauline Epistles may have 
 been written by different authors, and that they 
 nevertheless have all this while passed for Paul's 
 genuine productions. 
 
 But the ancient testimonies — what about them ? 
 There has been, it is said, an unbroken tradition 
 
83 
 
 that Paul wrote these letters. But what of that? 
 That a story, when once beKeved, should then be 
 handed down, is a matter of course. The transmis- 
 sion of it, however, is not the same as an authen- 
 tication of it. The vital question is, whether the original 
 belief was well grounded. What now is the fact 
 concerning the Epistle to the Romans? The first 
 writer of whom we know that he quotes this Epistle 
 is Irenaeus, who died about 190 A. D. In his writ- 
 ings the Pauline Epistles are frequently referred to 
 and cited. If then Irenaeus's writings are them- 
 selves genuine (which we do not care to deny, but 
 are not necessarily bound to take for granted), iC 
 is plain that Irenaeus not far from 175 A. D. acknow- 
 ledged our thirteen Epistles as genuine works of 
 Paul. We may admit this quite readily. For ac- 
 cording to our own view the Epistle to the Romans 
 was then extant in its present composite form. K 
 (t^ wrote, say, between 80 und 90, G-2 between 100 
 and 110, JC between 115 and 125, and CJ between 
 130 and 140, what is there to hinder our supposing 
 that Irenaeus regarded the composite Epistle as a 
 genuine letter of Paul to the Romans? We need 
 only to assume that the Redactor had brought the 
 writings together, say, as early as 150 A. D., so 
 that Irenaeus had the work before him years before 
 he wrote his treatises. 
 
 It is true that certain passages from the First 
 Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians are adduced 
 as e^'idence that he was acquainted with our Epistle. 
 And Clement is supposed to have written it about 
 96 A. D. What shaU be said of this? In the first 
 
 9* 
 
84 
 
 place, the passages in question are not quotations 
 at all, Clement makes no mention of our Epistle* 
 The passages merely resemble certain passages in 
 the Epistle to the Romans. The resemblances are 
 such as might occur without any acquaintance on 
 the part of Clement with the Epistle in question. 
 Both of them sprang up in the Christian Church, 
 and breathed a common spirit. Many expressions 
 of Christian doctrine might well have become almost 
 stereotyped by repetition, so that it would be strange 
 if we did not find in one writer what may sound 
 like echoes of the other ^ But, in the second place, 
 we do not certainly know who wrote this Epistle 
 to the Corinthians, nor when it was written. The 
 letter does not itself profess to be Clement's, but 
 only a letter from the church at Rome. Nothing 
 but a tradition ascribes it to Clement. And the 
 date of the letter is disputed, some putting it as 
 late as 150 A. D. But thirdly, even if it should 
 be conceded that the resemblances in question do 
 betoken a dependence of one writer on the other, 
 the dependence may as well be on the side of the 
 Pseudo-Paul as on the side of Clement. It is a 
 clear case of petitio principii when one reasons 
 
 * This cannot be said with the same positiveness of the 
 references in Clemenfs Epistle to Paul's Epistles to the Corin- 
 thians, especially the passage (Ch. xlvii.) where Paul and his 
 Epistle are expressly mentioned, and the Cephas and ApoUos 
 parties are alluded to. As to this, if the date of the Clement 
 letter is put as late as some are inclined to do, the passage need 
 not distxirb us; if not, we need only to assume that the passage 
 is ^n interpolation. 
 
85 
 
 otherwise. It is in effect taken for granted that the 
 Epistle to the Romans was written first, and then, 
 because it is used in the Clement letter, it is in- 
 ferred that it must have been written first! The 
 same may be said of the alleged use of our Epistle 
 in the Epistle of Polycarp, the Epistles of Ignatius, 
 and other early Christian writings. As for Marcion, 
 we get our knowledge of him from others. According 
 to them he received ten of the Pauline Epistles as 
 genuine, but expurgated them to suit his own views. 
 How far these statements can be trusted, need not 
 here be discussed; for it does not materially affect 
 our conclusion. According to the latest authorities 
 Marcion was in Rome somewhere between 140 and 
 170 A. D.; and the development of his Grnosticism 
 and his doctrine of the New Testament may be dated 
 any where within these years. Practically, there- 
 fore, he ranks with Irenaeus in point of time, as 
 a witness respecting the New Testament Canon, 
 only that we have Irenaeus's own writings, and have 
 not Marcion's. At the best his testimony only shows, 
 what we may admit, that by 160 or 170 A. D. a 
 number of Epistles professing to be Pauline were 
 accepted as such by Marcion, Irenaeus, and probably 
 by the leading men of the Church generally. The 
 testimony of the Muratorian Canon is to the same 
 effect. But this takes us no farther back than the 
 times of Irenaeus. We have then no trustworthy^ 
 historical testimony which proves the Epistle to the 
 Romans to have been known or received as Pauline 
 before the middle of the second century. 
 
 3. But the objection will at once be raised, that 
 
86 
 
 these testimonies of tlie second lialf of the second 
 century in reality do more than to prove that the 
 so-called Pauline Epistles were then extant. If they 
 were at that time generally received as canonical 
 Scriptures, it may be argued that this implies that 
 they must have been known a long time before, else 
 they could not at the time spoken of have acquired 
 canonical authority. How is it conceivable, one may 
 ask, that, if up to the middle of the century there 
 were no Epistles of Paul known and reverenced in 
 the Church, a whole series of such Epistles could 
 make their appearance and become almost imme- 
 diately accepted as genuine? Can it be supposed 
 that the whole Church could be so easily persviaded 
 that letters of Paul never before heard of had just 
 been discovered? Would not all men of discretion 
 at once have suspected a forgery? Is it, therefore, 
 not necessary to suppose that the testimony of 
 Irenaeus and liis contemporaries really puts the 
 origin of the Epistles very far back of Irenaeus's 
 own time? Moreover, since Irenaeus was born pos- 
 sibly as early as 115 A. D. , and lived in Rome 
 about the middle of the second century, must he 
 not have known that the Roman church had never 
 had any letter from Paul? When the alleged letter 
 appeared, must he not have known that it could be 
 nothing but a fraudulent production? Furthermore, 
 since Irenaeus was personally aquainted with Pol- 
 ycarp and others whose lives reached back far into 
 the first century, and some of whom even had seen 
 the apostles , must not Irenaeus have been certain 
 that no letters of Paul were in existence, if in fact 
 
87 
 
 Paul really liad written none? How then could he 
 in liis later years speak of the Pauline Epistles as 
 if there were no doubt whatever of theii* having 
 been written by Paul? 
 
 Tliese are certainly weighty considerations and 
 must be met. Professor Steck^ does not shut his 
 eye to them ; and we cannot do better than to adopt 
 his treatment of the diificulty. He says : "When, as 
 is generally done, one imagines that spurious apostolic 
 writings could not come to be regarded as apostolic 
 except by a gradual process and after a long series 
 of years, at a time, say, when all information about 
 their origin had been lost, and a different conception 
 concerning them had gradually sprung up, the 
 process is differently conceived from what it really 
 must have been. We must not forget that such 
 writings as the New Testament Epistles from the 
 very beginning, and by their very address expressly 
 claimed to have been written by the Apostle whose 
 name they bear. They were deliberate forgeries, 
 undertaken, in the spirit of that age and of all the 
 literature of the early Church, by those who thought 
 they were thereby serving the cause of Christian 
 truth and of the Church. If tlie undertaking was 
 successful , it is not necessary to assume a long time 
 during which belief in their genuineness could be 
 developed ; this must have come about at once in those 
 circles to whom the general drift of the new literary 
 productions was welcome; whereas those of a dif- 
 ferent turn of mind expressed their opposition by 
 
 * Der Galaterbrief, p. 349 sq. 
 
rejecting them. With the victory of the orthodox- 
 ecclesiastical party the opinion that the writings were 
 of apostolic origin became victorious also; and the 
 opposition came by degrees to be regarded as the 
 position of a heretical party. Therefore it is not at 
 all necessary to assume a long obscure period of 
 preparation for the appearance of such writings; 
 rather, the fact doubless is, as Renan has somewhere 
 said, that the traces of the appearance of such a 
 wi'iting in ecclesiastical literature generally indicate 
 pretty exactly the time of its production." 
 
 Nothing could be more luminous and satisfac- 
 tory than this exposition of the case. It puts the 
 process so graphically before us that we seem to 
 see it going on, and can hardly doubt the expla- 
 nation more than the e\ddence of our senses. The pro- 
 cess, then, was a very simple one — a simple, in- 
 tentional, and successful deception. If those who 
 produced and introduced the pseudepigraphic writ- 
 ings succeeded in persuading the Christian public, 
 or a considerable part of it, that the forged writings 
 were genuine, then the pious end was gained. The 
 Epistle to the Romans, for example, was put to- 
 gether in the manner we have described and put 
 out as an Epistle of Paul. The orthodox Christians 
 were ready to accept it at once for what it pro- 
 fessed to be, even without any evidence of a his- 
 torical sort that such a letter had ever been heard 
 of before. But why did it not seem strange to them 
 that a letter of Paul's should thus suddenly turn 
 up so long after the Apostle's death? Simply be- 
 cause "the drift of the new literary productions was 
 
89 
 
 welcome". The letter contained what men liked; 
 and they believed that Paul had written it simply 
 because they wanted to believe it. Those on the 
 other hand who did not like the contents of the 
 letter rejected it and called it spurious. On both 
 sides the judgment was purely subjective. No one 
 thought of instituting a historical investigation into 
 the origin of the letter. Because the letter pleased 
 the orthodox majority, it was orthodox to call it 
 Pauline, and heretical to call it otherwise. And so 
 it was with the whole New Testament. No book 
 in it is genuine. But, as Steck elsewhere ^ forcibly 
 observes, "If every thing is spurious, then nothing 
 is 'spurious' any longer. The whole question comes 
 to an end; there is no further quarrel about the 
 genuineness or spuriousness of the New Testament 
 books, but rather we try to understand each one 
 by looking at its contents, and to assign it its place 
 in the history of primeval Christianity accordingly. 
 The moral scruple which used to make the critical 
 positions distasteful to the Christian feeling disap- 
 pears. We use and enjoy these writings now with- 
 out any illusion , but also without prejudice , and 
 do justice to their intrinsic worth". 
 
 Thus it appears that it required little time or 
 effort to bring the New Testament into existence. 
 That age was, as every one knows, a pseudepigraph- 
 ical age. The world was full of pseudonymous 
 writings. That was the fashion. And we owe to 
 this fashion the fact that we have any New Testa- 
 
 1 L. c. p. 385. 
 
90 
 
 ment at all. For since neither Christ nor the first 
 Christians wrote books, and the Church nevertheless 
 was unwilling to adopt anything as canonical unless 
 it was supposed to be apostolic, there was evidently 
 no way in which a canon could be formed except 
 by resort to this device of a pious fraud. Those 
 who practised it thought, as Steck aptly says, that 
 by this deception they were furthering the cause of 
 Christian truth. Of course no conscientious objection 
 could be urged against the procedure by any one 
 possessed of a Tiealthy conscience. If any one had 
 been so morbid or whimsical as to object to it, the 
 perpetrator would have only needed to reply in the 
 crushing words of G^, "If the truth of God through 
 my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also 
 still judged as a sinner?" (Rom. iii. 7). 
 
 To be sure, one may say that, in spite of the 
 pseudepigraphic mania of those times many genuine 
 writings appeared and have been preserved down 
 to our time. We have the works of Plato, Aeschylus, 
 Horace , Seneca , Philo , Josephus, and a great mul- 
 titude of others, whose genuineness no one seriously 
 questions. Nay, we have even genuine Christian 
 writings of that same period in which our New 
 Testament according to the critics originated. The 
 genuineness of these heathen, Jewish, and even 
 Christian, writings is conceded, although it is not 
 better attested than that of the Pauline Epistles. 
 Is not this an inconsistency? By no means. There 
 was for the most part no urgent motive for putting 
 out books in the name of the great men of the heath- 
 en world. This was done more or less, it is true, 
 
91 
 
 by those who wished thus to secure attention to 
 their productions. But the sacred cause of the 
 Christian religion demanded efficient measures; and 
 inasmuch as the Church a century after Christ's time 
 found itself without any canonical apostoKcal writ- 
 ings, and there was imminent danger that the 
 Church would be split up into numberless contending 
 parties and go to pieces irretrievably, there was an 
 imperative necessity of somehow averting this danger. 
 And this could be accomplished only by means of 
 pseudepigraphy. 
 
 One more question may possibly be asked : Why 
 should it have been the case that in the heathen 
 world men of note produced noted writings, whereas 
 in the early Christian Church the leading men wrote 
 nothing, and the influential and really able writings 
 of that period were written by unknown and ap- 
 parently mediocre persons? Is it not intrinsically 
 improbable that there should have been this differ- 
 ence? Well, we are under no obligations to answer 
 such questions. Our business is to find out the 
 facts, not to make every fact seem natural and in- 
 telligible to every body. Still we may attempt to 
 give a reason why it is reaUy for the best that the 
 authors of the Bible should be entirely unknown. 
 True, men naturally like to know something about 
 the authors of their favourite books. They are prone 
 to ascribe great books to great men. But this is 
 after all a childish weakness. The value of what 
 is written does not depend on the writer, but is 
 something intrinsic. That which is true and in- 
 structive is true and instructive, whether we know 
 
92 
 
 anything about the author or not. Strictly speaking, 
 it is better not to know anything about him. For 
 if we think of the person, we are likely to be in- 
 fluenced more or less by the real or supposed 
 character of the author instead of by what he says. 
 It is, therefore, to be regarded as the arrangement 
 of a beneficent Providence that perfect obscurity 
 conceals the origin of our Biblical books, so that 
 we are not tempted to forget the great truths in 
 our glorification of those who have uttered them. 
 
 It is of course not romantic to be obliged to 
 talk about the writings of J, E, P, JE, Gr, JC, etc., 
 instead of about the writings of Moses, David, John, 
 or Paul. But, properly considered, this will be 
 found to be the very excellence, and even sublimity, 
 of the result of criticism, that personality is put 
 out of sight, that personal peculiarities can have no 
 weight in our judgment of published works. As in 
 algebra great truths are best expressed when the 
 quantities are designated by letters insignificant in 
 themselves, so in the sphere of religion we have 
 attained the highest point when we know nothing 
 about the persons who first uttered great thoughts 
 or produced immortal writings. Accordingly it would 
 really be well if all writings were anonymous or 
 pseudonymous, if all orators could speak unseen, or 
 rather (since even the audible voice often exercises 
 a biasing effect) if there were no orators at all, 
 and every thing thought and expressed could be 
 found only in the unimpassioned form of anonymous 
 writings. Then every one would be able to judge 
 all subjects impartially; and beyond a doubt the 
 
93 
 
 world would soon begin to agree on the vexed 
 questions which now agitate it. It should, therefore, 
 be a source of rejoicing, when the critic expunges 
 from the most distinguished productions all traces 
 of personal relations and characteristics. When this 
 is fully accomplished, the naked thought, the simple 
 truth, towers aloft, Kke a great pyramid whose 
 sublime form one can view and admire without being 
 distracted by any thought of the king or the archi- 
 tect who first conceived or executed the work. 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 A. brief history of the foregoing treatise may 
 fittingly be given here. Some time ago I conceived 
 the plan of undertaking, as a jeu d' esprit, to prove 
 the Epistle to the Romans to be a compilation of 
 various non - Pauline elements. When I began , I 
 knew that besides Bruno Bauer's almost forgotten 
 effort, one or two Dutch critics had questioned the 
 genuineness of the Epistle. But I had not seen 
 their works, and I assumed the Pauline authorship 
 of the Epistle to be so generally admitted and so 
 incontrovertible that the very fact of my pretending 
 to dispute it would betray the irony of the effort. 
 When I had drawn out the argument in its main 
 features, I heard of Steck's work; and when my 
 essay was finished, that of Vblter appeared ; so that, 
 mine being published after theirs, it could not be 
 expected to be so self-evident that it is a travesty 
 as I had at first assumed. Still the main object 
 which 1 had in mind is not nullified by these works; 
 they only make it the more needful that it should 
 here be plainly stated what the real intent of my 
 treatise is. I may add that, while I believe fully 
 
95 
 
 ill the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the 
 Romans, I still think that I have made out a stronger 
 case for the spuriousness and composite character 
 of the Epistle than the real doubters themselves 
 have done. And by the exercise of sufficient in- 
 genuity equally plausible efforts might unquestion- 
 ably be made with many other ancient and even 
 modern works, about whose genuineness there is 
 not the slightest doubt in any well-balanced mind. 
 The reader will draw his own moral. 
 
 E. D. M«R. 
 
T. and T. Glavk's PuUicati 
 
 lu demy Svo, price lUs. tid., 
 
 THE JEWISH 
 
 AND 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MESSIAH. 
 
 A STUDY IN THE EARLIEST HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 By Professok VINCENT HENRY STANTON, M.A., 
 
 TKINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, 
 
 ' Mr. Stauton's book answers a real waut, aud will be iudispeiisable to 
 students of the origin of Christianity. We hoiie that Mr. Stauton will be 
 able to continue his labours in that most obscure and most important period, 
 of his competency to deal with which he has given such good proof in this 
 book.' — Guardian. 
 
 ' We welcome this book as a valuable addition to the literature of a most 
 important subject. . . . The book is remarkable for the clearness of its style, 
 Mr. Stanton is never obscure from beginning to end, and we think that no 
 reader of average attainments vnW be able to put the book down without 
 having learnt much from his lucid and scholarly exposition.' — Ecclesiastical 
 Gazette. 
 
 Xow complete, in Five Volumes, Svo, price 10s. 6d. each, 
 
 HISTORY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE IN THE 
 TIME OF OUR LORD. 
 
 By Dr. EMIL SCHURER, 
 i'kofessou ov theology in the univeksiiy ok kiix. 
 
 TRANSLATED FKOM THE SECOND EDITION (Keviseu tuuolgu- 
 
 OUT, AND GItEATLY ENLARGED) OF 'HISTORY OF THE NEW 
 
 TEST. AM EN T TIMES: 
 
 *^^* Professor Schurer has prepared an exhaustive Index to this work, to 
 which he attaches great value. The Translation is now ready, and is issued 
 in a separate "Volume (100 pp, Svo). Price 28. Gd. nett. 
 
 ' Under Professor Schiii-er's guidance we are enabled to a large extent to 
 construct a social and political framework for the Gospel History, and to set 
 it in such a light as to see new evidences of the truthfulness of that liistorj- 
 and of its contemporaneousness. . . . The length of our notice shows our 
 estimate of the value of his work." — English Churchman. 
 
 ' Messrs. Clark have afresh earned the thanks of all students of the New 
 Testament in England, by undertaking to present Schiirer's masterly work 
 in a form easily accessible to the English reader. ... In every case the 
 amount of research displayed is very great, truly German in its proportions, 
 while the style of Professor Schurer is by no moans cumbrous, after the 
 manner of some of his countrymen. We have inadequately described a most 
 valuable work, but we hope we have said enough to induce our readers who 
 do not know tin's book to seek it out forthwith,'— ilfcWtorfwt Recorder, 
 
T. and T. Clark'a FuUications. 
 
 GRIMM'S LEXICON . 
 
 ' The best New Testament Greek Lexicon. ... It is a treasury of the results 
 of exact scholarship.'— Bishop Westcott. 
 
 In demy 4to, Third Edition, price 36s., 
 
 A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT, 
 
 BEING 
 
 GRIMM'S 'WJLKE'S CLAVIS NOVI TESTAMENT!.' 
 
 ^Translatta, l^cfaiselt, anD (EnlargcD 
 
 T5Y 
 
 JOSEPH HENRY THAYER, D.D., 
 
 BUSSEV PROFESSOR OF NEW TF.STAMENT CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION 
 IN THE DIVINITY SCHOOL OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY. 
 
 EXTRACT FROM PREFACE. 
 ' r I TOWARDS the close of the year 18fi2, the " Arnoldische Buchhandlung " 
 JL in Leipzig published the'First Part of a Greek-Latin Lexicon of the 
 New Testament, prepared upon the basis of the " Clavis Novi Testamenti 
 Philologica" of C. G. Wilke (second edition, 2 vols. 1851), by Professor C. L. 
 WiLiBALD Grimm of Jena. In his Prospectus, Professor Grimm announced 
 it as his pui'pose not only (in accordance with the improvements in classical 
 lexicography embodied in the Paris edition of Stephen's Thesaurus and in the 
 fifth edition of Passow's Dictionary edited by Eost and his coadjutors) to 
 exhibit the historical growth of a word's significations, and accordingly in 
 selecting his vouchers for New Testament usage to show at what time and 
 in what class of writei's a given word became current, but also duly to notice 
 the usage of the Septuagiut and of the Old Testament Apocrypha, and 
 especially to produce a Lexicon which should correspond to the present con- 
 dition of textual criticism, of exegesis, and of biblical theology. He devoted 
 more than seven years to his task. The successive Parts of his work re- 
 ceived, as they appeared, the outspoken commendation of scholars diverging 
 as widely in their views as Hupfeld and Hengstenberg ; and since its com- 
 pletion in 1868 it has been generally acknowledged to be bj' far the best 
 Lexicon of the New Testament extant.' 
 
 ' The best New Testameut Greek Lexicon. ... It is a ti-easury of the 
 results of exact scholarship.'— Bishop Westcott. 
 
 ' I regard it as a work of the greatest importance. ... It seems to mc a 
 work showing the most patient diligence, and the most carefully arranged 
 collection of useful and helpful references.'— The Bishop of Gloucester 
 AND Bristol. 
 
 ' The use of Professor Grimm's book for years has convinced me that it is 
 not only unquestionably the best among existing New Testament Lexicons, 
 but that, apart from all comparisons, it is a work of the highest intrinsic 
 merit, and one which is admirably adapted to initiate a learner into an ac- 
 quaintance with the language of the New Testament. It ought to be regarded 
 as one of the first and most necessary requisites for the study of the New 
 Testament, and consequently for the study of theology in general.' — Professor 
 
 1%MIL ScHl'iRBH. 
 
T. and T. Clark's Fuhlications. 
 
 HERZOG'S BIBLI CAL E NCYCLOPAEDIA. 
 
 Now complete, ia Three Vols. imp. 8vo, price 24s. each, 
 
 ENGYCLOP/EDIA OR DICTIONARY 
 
 Of 
 
 JBtbllcal, Ibistorical, Doctrinal, an& practical Cbeoloflg. 
 
 Based on the Real-Encyclopddie ofHerzog, Plitt, and Hauck. 
 Edited bv PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D. 
 
 'A well-designed, mei-itorious work, on which neither industry nor expense 
 has been spared.' — Guardian. 
 
 ' This certainly ia a remarkable work. ... It will be one without which 
 no general or theological or biographical library will be complete.' — Freeman. 
 
 ' The need of such a work as this must be very often felt, and it ought to 
 find its way into all college libraries, and into many private studies.' — 
 Christian World. 
 
 'As a comprehensive work of reference, within a moderate compass, we 
 know nothing at all equal to it in the large department which it deals with.' 
 — CAvrc/i Bells. 
 
 SUPPLEMENT TO HERZOG'S ENCYCLOP/EDIA. 
 
 In Imperial 8vo, price 8s., 
 
 ENGYCLOP/EDIA OF LIVING DIVINES. 
 
 ' A very useful Encyclopaedia. I am very glad to have it for frequent 
 reference.' — Kieht Kev. Bishop Lightfoot. 
 
 Now complete, in Four Vols. imp. 8vo, price 12s. 6d. each, 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 Wiii\] illustrations anti ilfllaps. 
 Edited by PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D. 
 
 Volwm I. ' " Volume II. 
 
 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS. ^'^- JOHN'S GOSPEL 
 
 AND THE 
 
 Volume III. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 
 
 Volume IV. 
 ROMANS to PHILEMON. HEBREWS to REVELATION. 
 
 'A useful, valuable, and instructive commentary. The interpi-etation is set 
 forth with clearness and cogency, and in a manner calculated to commend the 
 volumes to the thoughtful reader. The book is beautifully got up, and reflects 
 great credit on the publishers as well as the writers.' — The Bishop of 
 Gloucester. 
 
 'There are few better commentaries having a similar scope and object; 
 indeed, within the same limits, we do not know of one so good, upon the whole, 
 of the New Testament.' — Literary World. 
 
 'External beauty and intrinsic worth combine in the work here completed. 
 Good paper, good type, good illustrations, good binding please the eye, as 
 accuracy and thoroughness in matter of treatment satisfy the judgment. 
 Everywhere the workinauship is careful, solid, harmonious.' — Metkodisl 
 Recorder. 
 
T. and T. Clark's Piihlications. 
 
 LOTZE'S MICROCOSMUS. 
 
 In Two Vols. 8vo, Fourth Edition, price 36s., 
 
 MICROCOSMUS: 
 
 CONCERNING MAN AND HIS RELATION TO THE WORLD. 
 By HERMANN LOTZE. 
 
 Contents :— Book I. The Body. II. The Soul. III. Life. IV. Man 
 V. Mind. VI. The Microcosmic Order ; or. The Course of Human Life. 
 VTL History. VIII. Progress. IX. The Unity of Things. 
 
 ' These are indeed two masterly volumes, vigorous in intellectual power, 
 and translated with rare ability. . . . This work ^vill doubtless find a place 
 on the shelves of all the foremost thinkers and students of modern times.' — 
 Evangelical Magazine. 
 
 ' The English public have now before them the greatest philosophic work 
 produced in Gennany bj- the generation just past. The translation conies at 
 an opportune time, for the circumstances of English thought, just at the 
 present moment, are peculiarly those with which Lotze attempted to dea) 
 when he wrote his " Microcosmus," a quarter of a century ago. . . . Few 
 philosophic books of the century are so attractive both in style and matter.' — 
 Athenceum. 
 
 ' Lotze is the ablest, the most brilliant, and most renowned of the German 
 philosophers of to-day. ... He has rendered invaluable and splendid service 
 to Christian thinkers^ and has given them a work wliich cannot fail to equip 
 them for the stui'diest intellectual conflicts and to ensure their victory." — 
 Baptist Maijazinc. 
 
 lu Two Vols. 8vo, price 21s., 
 
 NA TURE AND THE BIBLE: 
 
 LECTURES ON THE MOSAIC HISTORY OF CREATION 
 IN ITS RELATION TO NATURAL SCIENCE. 
 
 Bv Dk. FR. H. REUSCH. 
 Revised .vxd Lokuected 15Y the Authou. 
 
 CranslatcH from tf)e JFourtij Haitian 
 By KATHLEEN LYTTELTON. 
 
 ' Other champions much more competent and learned than myself might 
 liave been placed in the field; I will only name one of the most recent, 
 Dr. Eeusch, author of "Nature and the Bible.""— The Eight Hon. W. E. 
 Gladstone. 
 
 ' The work, we need hardly say, is of profound and jierennial interest, and 
 it can scarcely be too highly commended as, in many respects, a very success- 
 ful attempt to settle one of the most perplexing questions of the day. It is 
 impossible to read it without obtaining larger views of theology, and more 
 accurate opinions respecting its relations to science, and no one will rise from 
 xia perusal without focHug a deep sense of gratitude to its author.' — Scottish 
 Review. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CAVLORO 
 
 
 
 
BS2665.4.M47 (analysis 
 
 Romans d.ssecteo.c 
 
 7 1012 00030 1640^