XVI.
It has been observed as strange that of all the Epistles of St. Paul, this to the Romans and that to Colossians, contain the greatest number of personal salutations, though these were precisely the two churches that he had never seen up to the date of his writing. A few critics, headed by Baur, have used this as an argument against the genuineness of the portion of the Epistles in question. But reasoning like this may safely be dismissed, as these very portions are just those which it would be most senseless and aimless to forge, even if it were possible on other grounds to think of them as a forgery.
On the other hand, there is some truth in the suggestion that the Apostle might think it invidious to single out individuals for special mention in the churches where he was known, while he would have no hesitation in naming those with whom he happened to be personally acquainted in churches where he was not known.
Besides this, it should be remembered that the Christians at Rome had been recently in a state of dispersion. All Jews by birth had been expelled from Rome by Claudius. It was this fact which had brought Aquila and Priscilla to Corinth and Ephesus, where St. Paul fell in with them, and he would naturally meet with other members of the dispersed church in the same way.
We are apt to underrate the amount of rapid circulation which went on in these early Christian communities. We know from Pagan writers that there was a great tendency all along the shores of the Mediterranean to gravitate towards Rome, and the population thus formed would naturally be a shifting and changing one, loosely attached to their temporary dwelling-place, and with many ties elsewhere. It will be noticed how many of the persons mentioned in the list had some prior connection with St. Paul, quite apart from their relation to the church at Rome. Andronicus, Junias, and Herodion, are described as his “kinsmen.” Aquila and Priscilla, and we may add, almost with certainty, Epænetus, he had met in Asia. Of Amplias, Urban, Stachys, Persis, and Rufus, he speaks as if with personal knowledge. If the Received reading were correct (“us” for “you”), Mary would have to be added to this list, and possibly also Apelles.
Analysing these lists of names from another point of view, two further general conclusions appear to be borne out. (1) The church at Rome did not consist to any great extent of native Romans. The only strictly Latin names are Amplias (for Ampliatus), and Urbanus. Julia, in Romans 16:15, merely marks a dependant upon the court. Aquila and Priscilla, Andronicus and Junia (or Junias), Herodion, and probably Rufus, appear to be Jews. The name Apelles, though not confined to Jews, was proverbially common among them. Aristobulus may be the Herodian prince of that name; in which case his household would be likely to be in great part Jews. The rest of the names are Greek. And this would tally with the fact that from the first there seems to have been a large Greek element in the church at Rome, so much so, that out of the twelve first bishops, only three seem to have borne Roman names, while the literature of the church, until some way into the third century, was Greek. (2) The names seem to belong in the main to the middle and lower classes of society. Many are such as are usually assigned to slaves or freed-men. Some are especially frequent in inscriptions relating to the imperial household; and this, taken in connection with the mention of “Cæsar’s household” in Philippians 4:22, may lead to the inference that Christianity had at this early date established itself in the palace of the emperor, though only among the lower order of servants.