ROME (CHURCH) ROME (CHURCH)

So far as appears, no one has as yet addressed him- unity of the church as having been manifest even in its
self to the task of an orderly scientific discussion of the oldest communities ; what is more to the point, they
arguments on the other side, or to an effective setting are at variance with older representations, whether we
forth of the arguments on behalf of the genuineness. receive these with absolute confidence or not, of the
Good commentaries-though all, it may he remarked written course of events connected with the founding of a
from the point of view of an undisputed and hereforc Christian community in Rome.
indisputable genuineness-are those of I:.
26. Literature. Weiss (6) (=Meyer-WeissPl), 1899, R. A. ‘ Ignatius,’ in his epistle t o the Romans (4 3), written about the
Lipsius (HCPI, 1892). W. Sanday and A. C. middle of the second century (see O LD -C HRISTIAN L ITERATURE ,
Headlam ( I d . Crit. Comlm. 1895). They all take account $$ 2 8 3 ) . indeed mentions ‘Peter and Paul’ as known and
of their important predecessors (see Weiss 39-43 Lipsius influential teachers of the church he is addressing, but sa1-5
vii-viii, Sanday xcviii-cix), amongst whom are Origen’(ob. 254), nothing as to their having founded it. The church of Rome
Chrysostom (ob. 407), Melanchthon (r56o), Calvin (1564), Grotius itself speaks by the niouth of ‘Clement ’ in the First Epistle to
(r645), Tholuck <1877), Riickert (183 )12) J. G. Reiche (183 the Corinthians, dating from about the year 140 A.D. (see OLD-
C. F. A. Fritzsche (r836-43), van Redgel (1854-59), de &:& C HRISTIAN L ITERATURE , $8 23-26) of Peter and Paul as known
witnesses to the truth (I Clem. 5 3.;), hut not a s founders of the
(1847)14); as also of the works of H.Alford (06. 1871) B. Jowett
(1855, 1859)(2l, C. A. Vaughan (1874)(*), W. Kell; (1873). F. church. Acts is not aware of any labours of Peter and Paul
Godet (1879, ET 1881), G. Volkmar (1875). C H J. Holtzmann, carried out in common a t Rome. From 25 17-28 it might seem
Einf.@l (1892), z o 246 : S. Davidson, Int7.81 (;8g4), 1105-152, to be a possible inference that Paul was the first to speak about
Th. Zahn EinLd {IF) 1251-310 M. S. Raljon, Gesch. van Christianity to the leading Jews there ; hut of Peter there is n o
de6oeken~e~?”Ts(igor),)8o-lor, F.’dpitp, Unt. Qb. d n B 7 . des word in this connection. Just as little is Peter mentioned in
P.an die Romer (qx); A. D. Loman, Quiest. Paulinz,’ Th. T the canonical epistle to the Romans even in conjunction with
(1882); R. Steck, Gal. (1888). 554-161, 359-363, 374-382, W.C. ‘Paul’ when this apostle is speakink of his desire to become
van Manen, Paulus 11.:De Enef aan de Rom. (1891). acquainted with the Christians of the metropolis, whose faith is
W. C. V. M. everywhere spoken of and whom he hopes ere long to be able
t o meet (1 3-15 152d2428f: 16 19). Indeed, the arrangements
between Paul on the one hand, and James, Cephas, and John
ROME (CHURCH) on the other accordi:g to Gal. 2 g ‘we to the Gentiles and they
to the circumcision (;Iceis eir’ T& ZBw, a+& 61 .Is +v
Not founded by Peter and Paul Age (0s 10-12). m p t m p j v ) , do not lead us t o expect to find in epistles of Paul
(0 IA). Character (0s 13-16). any word of co-operation between Peter and Paul in the found-
Not by Peter alone (0 3). Constitution and government ing of individual churches. What is related as to this at a
Not by Paul ($5 4-7). (%’7f.). later date with rezard t o Rome cannot hold good in presence of
Origin among Jews in Rome Influence and importance the assurance given us by the Epistle t o the Romans, whether
(0 8s). (8 19s). by Paul himself or by an anonymous author using his name,
Bibliography (I 21). that at Rome there was a considerable Christian community
before Paul could possibly have heen able to speak a single
The earliest period of the Christian community in word there.
Rome is wrapped in impenetrable obscurity. Tradition Matters do not stand much better with the belief-
1. peter-paul attributes its founding to the joint held absolutelv for manv centuries, called in ouestion
labours of the apostles Peter and Paul. a t the Reformation, and again at
tradition. This tradition, however, is unworthy 3. so also a later period maintained by many
of our confidence. It is comparatively recent. The tradition. Protestants also-accordine to which
oldest traces of its existence do not go back farther the church of Rome was founded by Peter alone. This
than to the close of the second century. tradition also deserves no credence, whether in the
According to a notice in Eusebins ( H E ii. 25 8), ’Dionysins form which represents Peter as having been bishop of
of Corinth ’ about the year 170 A.D., or somewhat later (see
OLD CHR;I<TIAN L ITERATURE , $
31),i wrote to the Romans as Rome for twenty-five years after the founding of the
follows : So also by this so weight admonition [of yours]-the church, or in the simpler form which merely conjectures
allusion is to the epistle of the gomans to the Corinthians that the apostle may have contributed something to the
( = I Clem.+ye have brought together [anew] that planting
[aforetime] made by Peter and Paul, of the [churches of the] formation and extension of the church, or at least in
Romans and of the Corinthians. For indeed these two both later years may have visited it for a shorter or longer
planted us in our Corinth and like&se taught us; in like period. The founding of the church by Peter is ex-
manner also after having taught together in Italy they suffered cluded by the silence of Ignatius and Clement on the
martyrdom about the same time’ [not necessarily, of course, a t
the same hour, or on the same day, the same month, or even the subject, and still more by the evidence of Acts, Gala-
same year] (rairra mi Sp& 6r& 6 s rouadn)s vou8suiac &p&mb tians, and Romans. Not only do they say nothing
IIGrpou K a i IIa6Aou +vTsiav pvq&?uav ‘Pwpalwv rf rai Koprv- positive to this effect ; they make it perfectly clear that
Biwv nverspa’uare. X a i ykp ap+ .ai e k 7i)v $pm’pav K6prvBov
$w&Tav+es $ p i s dpo&c r6i&a&w. &poiwe 6; K a i r k 6 v ’ I r a A i a v from the point of view of their respective authors such
0 p 6 m Gr&6&avrrc i p a p d w u a v .as& rbv a h b v racp6v). Here the a thing is not to be thought of. Acts closes its account
‘planting’ or founding of the churches, alike of Rome and of of Peter in 1217 with the words, and he departed, and
+

Corinth, is clearly recognised to have been the work of the went to another place * ( K a i &eXBbv taopedi3q EISh e p o v
apostles Peter and Paul. It is of no avail to say with Sanday
and Headlam (Cowcvc. p. xrxix) that the ‘planting‘ referred to T ~ T O V ) , and in the rest of the book Peter’s name is
(q5urrdcrv; cp I Cor. 3 6 8 97) is not to be taken ‘in the sense of only once again mentioned, and in a different con-
first foundation.’ We are not responsible for what ‘Dionysius nection (156-zo), where he is represented as again in
says ; hut we are under ohligation t o understand it in the sense
in which he meant it. Jerusalem. In view of this passage 1217 cannot be
The same remark holds good with reference to Irenzus when understood as referring to a journey to Rome for any
he speaks of the church at Rome as having been ‘founded an! lengthened period, not to speak of a period of five and
constituted by the two very glorious apostles Peter and Paul twenty years. Neither, however, can we understand a
(‘a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Panlo Romae
fundata et constitnta,’ iii. 8 I). These two, subsequently spoken visit to Rome of shorter duration, such as Harnack ( A C L
of as ‘the blessed apostles,’ the same authority (about 180 A.D.) 21 [1897], 240-244,704-710)still, with many, regards
goes on to state, after having founded and built up the church, a s probable, not even with the aid of the assumption
handed over the government to Linus (Oq.du6uavns ofv K a i
O ~ K O d O p r j U a V T soi para’pLor &rr6onoAor r;lv i.rAquiav Aivy * v
that the contents of Acts 15 were taken from another
6 s 2rrrurornjs Aerrovpyiav ; v q e i p r c a v , iii. 3 2 ; Ens. HEv. G I). source than that from which ’ Luke ‘ derived his other
I n Eus. HEv. 8 z he tells us that Matthew wrote a gospel for statements regarding Peter in Acts 1-12. The words
the Hebrsas in their own tongue ‘whilst Peter and Paul were
preaching the Gospel at Rome and foundin the church’ (705 quoted do not ‘ of course ’ say that we are to think of a
IIf‘rpou ra‘i 705 IIadAou ;v ‘Pirpg s ~ a ~ & k v w v ral Beps- mere visit whether to Rome or to any other place.
AroJvrwv T ~ 2
YrrAqdav). They are quite clearly intended merely to indicate that
These clear testimonies, however, to the founding of thi:author does not propose to follow the fortunes of
the church of Rome bv Peter and Paul-however un- Peter further : ‘and going his way, he journeyed to
2. Not hesitat&glytheymayhave been accepted another place.’ To understand Rome as intended
trustworthy. and built upon in later times-are one here becomes possible only after one has learned other-
and all auite unworthv of credence. where, rightly or wrongly, to speak of a sojourn of the
h’ot only are they relatively recent and obviously framed apostle in the metropolis. Acts says nothing of this,
in accordance with a shtled policy of glorifying the and plainly presupposes rather the exact opposite, since
4145 4146
 R O M E (CHURCH) ROME (CHURCH)
chap. 15 alluded to Peter as again in Jerusalem, and chap. 5, or treating of the life-work of the ‘ apostles ’ in
28 17-28,speaking of Paul’s meeting with Jews at Rome, chaps. 42 and 44, if he had known anything of it.
leaves no room for the supposition that Peter had Hermas and Justin, both of them witnesses belonging to
preceded him there as a preacher of Christianity. the Roman circle, are similarly silent as to aught that
Galatians knows no residence of Peter other than Peter may be supposed to have done, said, or endured
Antioch (2 II-21)-apart from Jerusalem where, accord- there.
ing to 118 2 1-10,he seems to have his home, an agree- There are, then, as regards Peter’s going to Rome,
ment that he is to address himself to ‘ the circumcision’ and as regards his journeyings as a whole, traditions
being expressly mentioned. Romans knows of Chris- which, in part, are mutually exclusive and in no c a e
tians in Rome ; refers to their conversion from Judaism admit of being combined together into one consistent
and heathendom, their fidelity to the Pauline type of whole. The older ones do not imply the supposed fact
doctrine once received (6171, and the spiritual bond of the church of Rome having been founded by Peter;
subsisting between them, or many of them, and Paul; they have no knowledge of it, or even bear witness
but has not a word to say about any connection, whether against it by making statements which cannot be har-
of long or short duration, between them and the apostle monised with it. Acts, Galatians, Romans, I Clem.,
Peter, and does not even so much a s mention his name. undoubtedly come chiefly into consideration here. On
The writer, whoever he may have been, it has been the same side there fall to be grouped other N T testi-
rightly remarked, has no acquaintance with any tradition monies to the martyrdom of Peter, and, more precisely,
which represented Peter as having been the founder of his crucifixion, drawn from very old, if not the oldest,
the Roman Church. His declaration made in 15 traditions relating to the careers of the apostles, though
that he, ‘Paul,’ would not build upon another man’s without mention of the place where this violent death
foundation, however inconsistent with the desire ex- occurred. See Jn. 2118-22 (cp 1336) Mt. 1051: 16-18
pressed in 18-15 and 15 22-24 29, wholly excludes it. 22-33 233439 24914 Mk. 139-13 Lk. 2447 Acts 18.
Especially so as soon as by the word ‘ another ‘ we under- Within the circle of these ancient witnesses we can safely
stand, as is usually the case, an apostle-in this instance say-apart, if you will, from I Pet. 1 T 5 13-of all those
Peter. in the NT, to which also may be added that of the apos-
It is, in fact, improbable that Peter ever set foot in tolic fathers, that not a single word or even the remotest
Rome. The later traditions regarding this, including hint is found in them as to a sojourn, whether of long or
those handed down by Eusebius, have no claim to our of short duration, of Peter in Rome, whilst, in fact, more
acceptance, as has often been convincingly shown by than one of them, by implicit or explicit declaration, are
many scholars (and recently by C. Clemen, Preuss. irreconcilably at variance with any such supposition.
yahr6., 1901, pp. 404-417,and C. Erbes, Zfschr. Kir- Rather does everything plead for the view that Peter
chengesch., IFI, pp. 1-47. 161-231). They possess no never visited Rome, but worked continuously in Pales-
higher value than those relating to Thomas’s preaching tine-occasionally, perhaps, outside its limits, but never
to the Parthians, Andrew’s to the Scythians, John’s in very far off-and that there, it may well have been in
Asia Minor. When Eusebius, immediately aftenvards Jerusalem, somewhere about 64 A.D. under Sabinus,l
(iii. 3 2 , cp ii. 25 5 ) . gives expression to the conjecture or, at all events, some years before the destruction of the
that Peter preached to the Jews of the dispersion in temple and city in 70 A.D., he died a martyr’s death.
Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia, before [See, further, S I M O N PETER.]
his crucifixion (head downwards) at Rome, he attributes What remains of the late tradition as to the founding
to him, obviously with his eye on I Pet. 11,a career of the church of Rome by Peter and Paul conjointly
which he himself could not possibly reconcile with the does not need any careful scrutiny after
details that he gives elsewhere. According to iii. 362, 4. the name of Peter has been eliminated.
Peter was for some time bishop of Antioch before Igna- in W e are not. in that event, shut up to
tius; according to ii. 25 8 he was, along with Paul, the alternative: if not by Peter and
founder of the churches of Corinth and Rome; accord- Paul together, then probably by Paul alone. This is
ing to ii. 146,the powerful opponent of Simon Magus nowhere said in any tradition so far as known to us.
at Rome in the reign of Claudius (41-54A.D.) ; accord- Tradition seems rather to have followed this course :
ing to vi. 25 8, the rock upon which the church of Christ since it is impossible that Paul can have founded the
is built, and the author of two epistles. church along with Peter, his name must not be thought
A reference to I Pet. 1I , though often made in con- of in connection with the founding at all. Acts and
junction with 5 13, is of no avail to support the view that Pauline Epistles, writings frequently read in a large cir-
Peter at some time or other had indeed made a stay, cle, indicated this.
longer or shorter, in Rome. There need, indeed, be no Acts knows of no Christian church at Rome at a date
hesitation, not even in presence of the objections of prior to a possible foundation by Paul after he had
Erbes,l to see in ‘she that is in Babylon, elect together proclaimed the glad tidings to the Jews assembled at
with [you]’ (+dv BapuXGvr U U V E K X E K T ~ I, Pet. 5 13) an allu- his lodging (28 17-31). In 28 15. indeed, we read of
sion to the church in Rome. In I Pet., however, it is the ‘brethren ’ who came from Rome to Appii Forum
not Peter himself who is speaking, but an unknown and the Three Taverns to meet Paul, and it is no
author writing in the first half of the second century, doubt usual to regard these as having been Chris-
130-140 A.D. (OLDCHRISTIANLITERATURE, $ 10 ; tians, but on no adequate grounds. They are, to judpe
PETER, EPISTLES OF, $$ 5f.; CHRISTIAN. 5 8). H e from m. 17.28, Jews, just as Roman Jews (v. 21) call
is the exponent of a tradition, not met with elsewhere, their kinsmen in Judaea ‘the brethren.’ They are
regarding Peter as apostle in a portion of the countries amazed at Paul’s plans, and declare as distinctly as
of Asia Minor where Paul also had laboured, and at the possible in 21. z2 that up to that hour they had heard
same time of the other widely spread tradition that Peter nothing of ‘this sect -i.e., of the Christians-beyond
had his home in Rome. Acts, Galatians, and Romans, the mere name. All this is in perfect agreement with
so far as we can see, are not yet acquainted with this the current representation in Acts, according to which
latest tradition. Even I Clem., written professedly by Paul in his journeyings invariably first addressed
the church of Rome, and probably, in point of fact, himself to the Jews and thereafter to the Gentiles
originating there, says nothing of a sojourn of Peter in with a view to proceeding to the setting up of a
Rome. The writer assuredly would not have passed it Christian community, whether composed entlrely of
over in silence when speaking of Peter’s glorious past in converted Gentiles, or partly also of former Jews (cp
1346 and 13-28 passim). The view that by the
‘brethren’ of Rome, alluded to in 28 15, as also by
1 Op cii., below, 16-20. Erbes once more seeks to plead for a
sojourn of Peter among the Jews in Babylon, unless perhaps
we are to understand Jerusalem. 1 So Erbes, 212, conjectures, relying upon 10s. A n t . xx. 9 5.
4147 4x48
 ROME (CHURCH) ROME (CHURCH)
those of Puteoli in v. 14, we are to understand Chris- able presupposition is that Rome was won for the gospel
tians, rests solely upon the representation in Romans, w-ithout the intervention of Paul, either by his epistles
according to which Christians are found in Rome long or by his later personal intercourse.
before Paul has ever visited that city. Whom then are we to name as founder of the Roman
At the same time it must be remembered that the church? Not any of the apostles,' as long ago
opposite representation in Acts has no historical authori- 8. Foundere Ambrosiaster in the so-called commentary
tativeness, being inextricably bound up with the tendency unknown of Ambrosius in the fourth century rightly
of that book which has been already referred to. answers (cp Sanday and Headlam, pp.
Moreover, in Acts 28 30f: the founding of a Christian Jews xxv, ci). We could almost venture to
church at Rome by Paul is rather tacitly assumed than guess : one or more of those who probably at a quite
asserted in so many words. It is possible that in the
' early date, spread the glad tidings of salvation from
'Acts of Paul' (which were worked over by the writer Jerusalem westward. There was abundant oppor-
of our canonical Acts, and also made use of in the tunity in the constant intercourse between Rome and
composition of the Pauline Epistles, and which them- the east, even before the middle of the first century, for
selves in turn had their origin in a redaction and travellers from Palestine to return, or come for the first
expansion of the recognised We-source) the original time, to the banks of the Tiber and there to discourse,
journey record (P AUL , 5 37 ; O LD -C HRISTIAN L I TER A - as they had done in the various other ports and cities
TURE, § 9) may have given a somewhat different they touched on their route, of the ' things concerning
account of the conditions which Paul found a t Rome Jesus' (76aepiroG'IqooG ; Acts 18% 282331), theking-
and elsewhere in Italy. It may be that, according to dom of God' (i,,@amAda706 BcoG ; Acts 1422 198 2025
that representation, there were already in more than 2 8 2 3 3 1 ) ~ ' t h e preaching of the gospel' ( r b d a y -
one place at Rome Christians, ' brethren ' in another ycAlJ-euBar ; Acts 1 3 3 2 147 15 21 1535 lS10). It is not
and higher sense than that of mere kinship, and that necessary to have recourse to the hardly historical
their figurative designation is adopted by Acts so that account of the first appearance of the apostles at
the a brethren ' in Puteoli and Rome, according to Acts Jerusalem in Acts 2 , where, as we read in vv. 10 J ,
2814,f to be understood as Jews who were friendly Romans, Jews as well as proselytes, were sojourning
disposed towards Paul, were at the same time the (01 6irr8qpoGvrer 'Pwpaioi, ' I o d a i o i r e K a i a p o u ~ A u r o ~ ) .
original Christians of these places. Such Jews living in Rome, as well as Gentiles who had
However that may be, Acts nowhere contains any attached themselves to them and professed their
express statement as to the founding of a Christian religion, may well have visited Jerusalem on other
church at Rome by Paul ; and as little occasions and become messengers, possibly very
6 , In
does the epistle to the Romans. What capable ones, of what they had seen and heard there
Romans implies is, clearly, rather this-that the church 9. Jewish to their brethren in the metropolis. W e
had already been long in existence when Paul was settlements shall best picture to ourselves the subse-
cherishing the hope that he might have an opportunity quent course of events if we suppose that
of personally visiting it. This view is wont to be at Rome. the preaching of the gospel and the
accepted on all hands as just : by the majority, because establishment of the new religion made its way amongst
they hold it to come from the apostle Paul ; by others, 'Jews and proselytes' in Rome. Whoever wishes to
the friends of advanced criticism, because, however picture to himself the nature of the field in which, now
fully convinced of the pseudepigraphical character of here, now there, the good seed was scattered by un-
the epistle (see R OMANS ), they have no reason for known sowers, must try to form some conception of the
doubting it. These have this advantage over the others Jewish settlements in Rome as they then were. Very
6. Romane that they are not, like them, sorely per- many they were, ordinarily confined within certain
plexed by Acts which betrays no acquaint- precisely defined limits, but within these moving with
v:yys
nwm.
ance with the epistle held to have been
addressed to the church of Rome by Pan1
social freedom bound only in so far as they themselves
chose to be so by the customs and practices received
at least two years before he himself undertook the journey from their fathers, the law and what it was held to
thither only to become aware on his arrival in the enjoin on the faithful children of Abraham by descent,
metropolis that noone therehadever heardanythingabout or on the proselytes who had joined them. Alternately
him or even about Christianity at all otherwise than by receiving the favours of the great and bowed down
report merely. They set down the divergent representa- under the heavy burden laid upon them by authorities
tions in ' Luke ' and ' Paul ' simply to the account of the of a less friendly disposition; constantly exposed to
separate writers, and as regards a supposed founding of risks of persecution, scorn, and derision, and seldom
the church at Rome, can only say that according to allowed to pass altogether without notice ; engaged in
' Luke ' it was perhaps the work of Paul, but according to the pursuit of trade and dependent on this for their daily
' Paul,' certainly not. According to ' Luke,' perhaps bread, now envied for their wealth and now plunged
it was, since we must interpret in accordance with the into the depths of poverty or reduced to the ranks of
general tendency of his ' historical ' work ; according to professional beggars. Such, just before and during the
'Paul,' because everyone thought so in those days opening decades of the first century, was the manner of
nor yet had any one any knowledge of a founding life of the Jews in Rome : a great brotherhood, we may
of the church in Rome by Peter and Paul, or by call it, broken up into a number of smaller communities ;
'' Peter alone. In other Pauline epistles also
there is no trace of acquaintance with
a band of aliens who know how to maintain their old
manners and customs, their nationality, and their religion,
eplstles' any tradition which sought to represent in spite of many divergencies and divisions among them-
that founding as having been brought about by Paul. selves, in the midst of the surrounding Gentiles amongst
In Romans there is no hint, of the kicd we meet with in whom their progenitors had settled. At first they had
I Cor.414 z Cor.613 1214 Ga1.419, that ' P a u l ' can come to pay a visit there because commerce and political
regard those whom he addresses as his ' children.' There reasons had brought them to the world-city ; so it had
is no suggestion of such a relation of Paul to Rome even been already in the days of the Maccabees. Others again
in Philippians, Philemon, or I Clem. 55- 7, where there had been brought to Rome from their native country as
was such ample opportunity to call to mind the founding slaves, but on closer acquaintance were hardly found
of the Roman Church by Paul had the writer been suitable and often received their freedom or even were
minded to refer to it. The Pauline literature says invested with the privileges of Roman citizens. So, in
nothing at all about it, nor yet do the kindred writings, particular, shortly after the capture of Jerusalem by
I Peter, I Clement, Herrnas, Ignatius. Rather must Pompey in 6 3 B.C. By Caesar and others they were
we say that in all of them the undisputed and indisput- shown great favour. Under Tiberius they were ex-
133 4'49 4'50
 ROME (CHURCH) ROME) (CHURCH)
pelled from Rome in the year 19 A.D. and partly founding of the church at Rome belonged to a con-
employed in the war against the pirates of Sardinia. siderablyremote past and at that distance of time could,
Under Claudius about 49 A.D. they were again speaking broadly, be connected with adelineation of the
banished. Under Nero it wonld seem they enjoyed no period when Paul was setting out for, or had arrived at,
small power and influence. (For details see Schiirer. the metropolis of the empire. .
G/6'(3J.1898, 3 28-36 and specially the literature referred The nearer determination of the date is to be sought
to there on p. 28, n. 70 ; cp EH9),20 727-730 [1886]). in such data as ( I ) the tradition regarding Paul's plans
On this Jewish soil the earliest Roman Christianity, 12. Further with reference to a journey to Spain, by
we may safely affirm, had already come into being way of Rome, where a Christian church
Age. before the middle of the first century. The data. no longer needed to be founded (Rom.
oldest distinct trace of its beginnings is 1 5 2 8 f: cp I Clem. 5 5 - 7 ) ; ( 2 ) the tradition of Paul's
found in Suetonius (CZuaud. 25), where he says of the death a t Rome, whether, as the ordinary reckoning
emperor Claudius that he expelled the Jews from Rome has it, in 64, as Erbes thinks, on 23rd Feb. 63, or
on account of their persistent turbulence under the as yet others judge, a t some date that cannot be
instigation of Chrestus ( I Judzos impulsore Chresto more exactly determined, shortly before or in con-
assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit ' ; cp C HRISTIAN , nection with the persecution of the Christians in the
$$ 6 iii.). The banishment of the Jews (Acts 18 2 and summer of 6 4 ; (3) all that relates to the fact of the
Dio Cassius 60 6 ) , although probably in the event not persecution of the Christians at Rome by Nero ; (4)
judged expedient or perhaps even possible, and in any the appearance of the ' Church of Rome' as the writer
case not carried out on any large scale, had its occasion of Clement's first epistle to the Corinthians ; ( 5 ) the
in troubles and disturbances which had arisen among activity of hfarcion and Valentinus among the Christians
the Jews ' impulsore Chresto '-Le., at the instance or a t Rome ; (6) all that tradition tells us of the establish-
with the help of Chrestus. This Chrestus was, to judge ment of a bishop's see at Rome by the apostles
by the manner of speech of those days, no other than Peter and Paul ;-a very large series of testimonies
(Jesus) Christ ; his person and work, the views and continuously assuring us, each in its own way, that the
expectations connected with him, and his cause were founding of a Christian church at Rome goes back to
what led Claudius to seek to remove the Jews who had the middle of the first century of our era.
thus become troublesome. Now, though the exact The character of this church, was, to begin with, no
year in which this resolution was come to by the other than was to be expected from its origin within the
emperor is uncertain, if we remember that at the sphere of ' Jews and proselytes' (I 4).
beginning of his reign (41-54 A.D.) he was, according 13.
to Josephus (Ant. xix. 5 2 - 3 ) , favoilrably inclined to the of church. Ambrosiaster in speaking of Jews alone
as fathers of the Christian community
Jews, we are led to think of a somewhat later date-let us a t Rome has here again truly said that those who
say with Schiirer (32f:) and others, the year 49 A. D . believed confessed Christ and held fast by the law ( ' ex
In that case the movement we are supposing, and its quibus [Judxis] hi qui crediderant, tradiderunt Romanis
procuring cause, the first systematic preaching of ut Christum profitentes legem servarent '). In this
Christianity in Rome, can have begun some months there is no 'exaggeration' a s Sanday and Headlam
or years previously. W e must leave open the question (p. 25, n. 3) have thought. They indeed could hardly
as to whether at a still earlier date some converts, have thought otherwise as long as they were dominated
in the course of pilgrimages to Jerusalem or through by belief in the genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans.
the agency of third parties in their adopted country, Whoever deems himself bound to maintain that belief
may not have been won for the new confession and must inevitably assume that already, before Romans
the expectations connected with it. Ronie had already was written by Paul-on the ordinary reckoning, that is
for a long time been a favourite and much frequented to say, before 59 A.D.-there were to be met Rith in
harbour for new ideas in the sphere of religion. Rome two divergent types of Christian faith and profes-
With the date thus arrived at for the founding of the sion, the Jewish-Christian and the Pauline. Such an
Christian church in Rome it agrees zolerably well that a one cannot avoid facing the question : What was the
ll. Theory of writer many years later, in Acts 28 17-18, church of Rome at that time? Jewish-Christian?
Acts and Ram, could still speak as if the new sect Pauline? Mixed? Yet all the while he is well aware-
were known only by name in the world or the discovery is ever anew forced upon him-that no
capital when Paul first proclaimed the tidings of satisfactory answer to the question can be given. Soma
salvation to the Jews there, and that another writer- texts speak very clearly for the view that the church in
the author of Romans-did not hesitate to assume question consisted of former gentiles, whilst others say
throughout his work that at that very time there had the exact opposite-that it was composed of former
already been for a long time in Rome believers belong- Jews (see R OMANS , 5 8 ; van Manen, Paulus, 2 23-25
ing to various schools of Christian thought and practice. 166-7). Yet we cannot hold with Sanday-Headlam
When these books were written the days of the first (p. xxvi) and others the theory that it was a ' mixed '
founding of a church in Rome were already so far church. T o such a theory can be applied to the
removed that in different circles divergent representa- full what these scholars remark in another connec-
tions were given regarding it, though there was some tion : ' there is no hint of such a state of things,' which
danger of misrepresentation. ' Luke ' is wrong moreover wonld compel us, contrary to the manifest
because he does not take account of the existence of intention of the writer, to think of ' two distinct churches
any Christian church at Rome before the apostle Paul in Rome, one Jewish-Christian, the other Gentile-
had made his voice heard there. The Pauline writer, Christian, and that St. Paul wrote only to the latter.'
on the other hand, represents the apostle of the Ariy one who, on the other hand, has been able to free
Gentiles as knowing that before his arrival among himself from the axiom of the genuineness and has
them the faith of the Roman Christians was already satisfied himself of the pseudepigraphical character of
' proclaimed throughout the whole world ' (Rom. this writing of a later time (see ROMANS)no longer feels
18), and in 6 1 7 it is the Pauline form of doctrine his hands tied by the various impossible attempts that
whereunto they have been delivered. Both the one have been made to ansRer thequestions proposed. H e
view and the other may well be questioned as strict is IIO longer perplexed by that other troublesome
history. Both writers make it manifest that they no question : How are we to explain the fact that nowhere
longer know the true position of matters so far as in history has there remained any trace of the existence
details are concerned. At the same time they confirm, of an important Pauline community in Rome, after the
each in his own way, the correctness of the date we have apostle's epistle had been sent thither ? H e takes no
arrived at ; at the beginning of the second century, the notice of all ideas of this sort, the pictures suggested
4'51 4152
 ROME (CHURCH) ROME (CHURCH)
in the epistle of the outward appearance and inward wide currency of the later tradition of the founding of
semblance of the Christian church in Rome in the days the Christian church at Rome by ' Peter and Paul.' .
before Paul could possibly have preached there-as ii. Panlinism was, however, only partially successful, as
being not renderings of historical actuality but pictures is no less clearly evident : ( u )from the way in which
of a past that never had been real, attempts to repre- in Romans Paul now admonishes the Jews (chaps. 1-8,
sent the old-Christian period after many decades had passim, and especially 217-29) and now shows them
passed. Such a student holds fast by the seemingly the greatest deference (chaps. 9-11 passim, especially
insignificant phrase, which yet tells us so much, of the 3 1 5 9r-5 1 0 1 ) ; ( b ) from the opposition met with by
instigating ' Chrestus' by whom the Jews in Rome, Marcion in Rome which ended in his expulsion from
according to Suetonius, in the days of Claudius (ob. the new religious community; ( c ) from the position
49 A . D. ) were troubled ; and holds by the pretty generally of the name of Paul in the yonnger tradition-already
accepted conception as to a Christian Church at Rome in Clement ' and ' Ignatius '-after that of Peter ;
which had arisen out of the faith and life, the active ( d ) from the spirit of works brought out at Rome
exertions, of ' Jews and proselytes ' who had been con- and extensively read there, the most outstanding of
verted to Christ ; by what Ambrosiaster has said, with which is the so-called first Epistle of Clement to
equal sobriety and justice-that Jews living in Rome in the Corinthians. The spirit there breathed, notlvith-
the days of the apostles had taught their brethren to standing the reverence expressed for ' Paul ' and
confess Christ and to hold fast by the law. the deference occasionally paid to the principles
In other words, the church in Rome was originally inaugurated by him, is much moreof a Jewish-Christian
Jewish - Christian, and probably long remained so. character than one that testifies to warm sympathy with
14,Jewish- Gradually more liberal ideas crept in, the gospel of freedom ; rather one that is slowly gravi-
Christian. thanks perhaps to the influence of more tating toward the left than one that is averse to the right
advanced preachers from abroad who had in principle ; a conciliatory and advancing spirit, if you
wholly or partially outgrown their Judaism, but thanks will, yet rather in many respects showing lingering attach-
still more to the ease with which in every sphere of ment to the pld than still standing with both feet upon
thought new ideas made way in Rome. Whether Paul the basis of the law, firmly rooted in Judaism, filled
may have had any active share in this work we are not with the rich contents of the Old Testament ; in a word,
now in a position to say. Acts leaves us in doubt. a spirit that in its inmost nature is becoming Catholic.
Romans testifies to good intentions but not to any work The Christian Church of Rome, in its beginnings a
actuallydone. The ' epistle,'in spiteof theseemingabund- shoot from the Jewish stock, in the course of years took
ance of the light it sheds on the events of the years im- 16. ~ ~ a d u up a l and assimilated elements that were
mediately preceding 59 A. n. in Rome, really draws over brought to it from other quarters : from
them all an almost impenetrable veil. It gives surpris- change. the East, and particularly from Syria and
ing glimpses into the history of the development of the Asia Minor. Its power of adaptation was of great use
church in the direction of greater freedom, the emanci- to it in regard to those elements in the new faith which
pation of Christianity from the dominion of the law, but were originally strange in it and were a t home rather in
all from a remote distance in space, probably from the the more developed circles of Paulinism, but in adapting
East-Antioch or somewhere else in Syria, it may be, or itself the original power of the Pauline spiritual move-
perchance Asia Minor-at all events, a long way off ment was in many respects taken away. In the course
and in a distinctly later time. In reality, in the of years-let us say, in round numbers, between 50 and
more trustworthy tradition there is n o 150 A.D.-the character of the church a t Rome, from
16. Struggle
trace of all this, but on the contrary, being Jewish-Christian with occasional deviations towards
of Paulinism. unmistakable proof that Paulinism at the right and towards the left, had become, we shall not
Rome though (i.) it struggled for a time for the victory say Pauline or Gentile-Christian, but Catholic. At the
in the days of Marcion (06. 140 A . D . ) , (ii.) never really later date-Le., about the middle of the second century
took permanent root there, and never was other than an -it had recently been the scene of the labours of
exotic. Marcion, who was excommunicated afterwards, Marcion
i. That Paulinism flourished in some degree at Rome the eager and serious advocate of Paul' who had already
is very certain, as we may safely infer: ( u ) from the probably some years before become known to it by means
way in which it is throughout presupposed in Romans of the (epistles.' It had at the same time come into
(witten probably about 120 A.D. ; see R OMANS , 23) touch with, among others, that highly gifted teacher, well
that. before his first visit to the capital. Paul already had nigh lost in broad and deep speculations, alternately
there a large circle of friends and followers, of whom a held in reverence and covered with scorn, the gnostic
whole series is mentioned by name in 163-15, and Valentinus. It had learned to listen to preachers of
who already for a long time had been instructed repentance like Hermas who, eminently practical,
in his distinctive type of doctrine ( 6 1 7 ) ; (6) from sought to win it before all things else to the urgent
the support as well as the opposition, which Marcion duty of conversion. But, however divergent may have
met with in Rome, in various capacities, and not least been the paths by which it was so dissimilarly led by
of all as advocate of his 'Apostle,' the Paul of the these and other leaders to clearer insight on many sides,
epistles; ( c ) from the friendly relation between Peter and deeper experience of the fruits of faith as that
and Paul presupposed in ' I Peter,' probably written a t translated itself into a genuine Christian life, the
Rome, in evidence of which relation we point not only structure as carried out appeared always, in spite of
to the Pauline form of the writing and to the mention, the multifarious and manifold additions, to rest npon
at theend, ofSilvanusandofMark(cpz Peter3Isf:), hut the old foundation-destined, as it would seem, never
also and chiefly to the strongly Pauline character of the to become obsolete-that of the law and of Jndaism, to
contents ; ( d ) from the liberal spirit of the gospel which, RS a new and indispensable element, confession
according to Mark, probably also written at Rome, of Jesus as the Christ, had been added.
along with which perhaps that according to Luke may How this Christian community a t Rome was originally
also be named ; ( e ) from the honour nzith which governed and organised can probablyhe best conjectured,
' Clement ' as spokesman of the church at Rome writes l,. Conatitu- in the absence of all positive informa-
' to the Corinthians ' concerning Paul (I Clem. 5 5-7 47 I ) , of Jewish tion, by calling to mind once more
and more than once declares that he is influenced by tioncommunity. what we know of the spirit of that
the reading of his ' epistles ' ; (f) from the mention of relipious fellowshio of the Tews oiit of
Paul along with Peter as a teacher of authority by which it arose. Lice this last it had no p o h c a l aims:
' 1gna.tius ' in his epistle to the Romans ( ' I do not com- and consequently as yet knew nothing of those who a t
mand you as Peter and Paul did,' 43) ; (R)from the a later time were to be called rulers and leader.;, charged
4153 41 54
 ROME (CHURCH) ROME (CHURCH)
with the care of the outward life of Christians as subjects However that may be, ‘ the church ’ had its rulers or
of the state. The Jewish ’ Church,’ although it can be leaders ($y015pwoc; 1 3 ) just as had the Jews ( 3 2 ~ )the ,
so called in respect of the religious confession of its Egyptians (tils), and others (373 55r 601). They are
adherents, formed no unity placed under the leadership usually called ‘ elders’ (~peuphepor; 1 3 33 216 445
and government of a single council or of one head. It 476 542 571, cp z Clem. 173 5 ) , but in one instance,
was made up rather of a great number of separate and though in no different sense, ‘ overseers ’ (8duKomr)
independent congregations (uuvaywyal), each having and ’deacons’ ( ~ L ~ K O ~ O424f.,
L , cp 441 503), charged
its own synagogue, its own council (yepouufa), its own with the sacred service (Xeirou&a, 41 I 44zf: 6). They
rulers ( ~ ~ X O Y T E E )who , also sometimes at least, were were ‘ministering’ (XELTOU~YOGYTES; 463) just as in
partly called ‘ elders ’ ( ~ p p ~ u @ r ~ p oand,
r ) , whether for their manner were the Jews (322 40). Enoch (9z),
life (6th j3lou) or for a limited period, were chosen at Aaron (434), the angels of God(345f:). In thisservice
the beginning of the Jewish civil year (in September). or ministry were included, or at least came under their
They were charged with the general leadership of the superintendence, (I) the reading of scripture ( 3 ypa+fi
community, sometimes also with the task associated or at tepa2 ypa+aai)-the O T as we now know it and
with the special office of chief of the synagogue whatever other writings were at that time reckoned as
(dp,ycuuvdywyos). The language employed was Greek, belonging to it ; also Christian writings such as Paul’s
as indeed the whole constitution with rulers ( ~ ~ X O Y ~ E S ’) Epistle to the Corinthians ’ and other treatises, including
and councils (yepowlac), so far as form was con- I and z Clem. (cp z Clem. 191 151 175 I Clem. 471
cerned, seems to have been borrowed from the civil 632 71, OLD-CHRISTIAN L ITERATURE , $3 2-4; Herm.
organisation usual in Greek cities (see Schurer, Die Vi&ii. 13 4 I Eus. HE ii. 25 8 iii. 38 5)-( z ) exhortation
Gemeindeveifassuns der3uden in Ram, 1879,and G 3 Y ( 3 ) , (cp I Clem. passim) and ( 3 ) prayer ( I Clem. 693-61
3, PP. 44-51 (18981). 2 Clem.22). All of these, as with the Jews, at least
The Christian Church also, we may safely take for down to near the end of the second century, were
granted, very soou after its members had been excom- performed in Greek.
municated, or had voluntarily withdrawn Of a monarchical government of the Church there is
cgB& from the Jewish synagogues in Rome,
had their own centres, with a government
as yet no trace in I and z Clem. Neither is there any
in the Shepherd of Hermas which, like the Epistles of
Church. proper to themselves (modelled mainly, Clement, knows only of elders ( Vis. ii. 42 3 iii. 1 8 ) and
so far as form was concerned, on that which they had overseers, along with ‘ teachers ‘ and ‘ deacons ’ ( Vis.
left at the call of religious principle and duty), their iii. 5 T Sim. ix. 27 2). The oldest traces of monarchical
own places of meeting (uuvaywyai), their own rulers church government in Rome are met with in the seven
( ~ P X O Y T E E ) , who are often called elders (~ppeu,BBl;repoc). epistles of ‘ Ignatius ’ which were probably written there
This was what happened elsewhere throughout the cities about the middle of the second century, and in the
of the Dispersion. Why not also in Rome? Acts calls earliest lists of Roman bishops -little trustworthy
the rulers ‘elders’ (~pe~/3Bl;~eppoc) in 1130 1423 2017 ; though these are in their substance, and put together in
whenever Jerusalem is spoken of, where the apostles the interests of the recognition of the episcopate, which
are regarded a s having lived and laboured, we read was then coming into being, or had recently come to be
of ‘apostles and elders’ (152 4 6 23 164) just as the important. They do not go farther back than to
same writer elsewhere when referring to the rulers Anicetus, and were probably drawn up under his
( ~ ~ X O Y T E Sof ) the Jews speaks of their ‘elders’ (217 successor Soter, about 170 A.D. (see Harnack, ACL
45 8 23 6 12 23 14 241.25 1 5 ) . For the rest, in Acts we ii. 1 1897,pp. 70-231,esp. pp. 144-202. See, further,
find no allusion to any government of Christian com- MINISTRY).
munities, just as, in fact, of the community that arose If the question be asked, finally, as to the influence
after the arrival of Paul in Rome nothing more is said and importance of the Christian church at Rome, it was
than that they met in Paul’s own house (2830f:). In 19. Importance small and certainly for the first few
Romans there is no evidence as to the terms employed decades, not to be compared with that
in this connection by the Christians at Rome, except
of Ilome. of the church at Jerusalem nor yet with
in a single passage where allusion is made to ‘ him that that of other churches of Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor.
ruleth’ (6 ? r p o i h d p ~ v o r: 128). It was only gradually in the course of the second
I Clem., the ‘epistle’ of the ‘church of God’ at century that a change in this respect came about, under
Rome to that of Corinth. has more to say. The church the influence of great historical events such as the fall
(3 dKKXt)ufa) comes before us as a unity embracing all of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the rebuilding of that city a s
believers within the boundaries of a definite locality ; E l i a Capitolina under Hadrian (see J ERUSALEM ,
so in the opening words and also in 443 476 (cp z Clem. 33f:), and the continual process by which the West
2 I 14 r 2 41). W e are not precluded from thinking that, manifested its preponderance over the East. In all this
as in the case of the Jews, this unity was made up of there made itself felt the favourable situation of the
various circles or congregations within the larger whole Christian Church at Rome in the centre of Graeco-
which comprehended the whole body of the faithful. Roman civilisation ; the inborn inclination, and the
The supposition finds support when we consider the corresponding aptitude, of what had been the Gentile
manner in which the occurrence of divergent ideas and element in the new church, to lead and soon to dominate
practices with regard to the choice of officials is spoken believers who had their homes elsewhere, as well as
of. Some consider themselves free in their choice ; but unbelievers ; and last, certainly not least, whatever that
others, including the writer, hold themselves bound to church was able to contribute from its own resources
tradition and obliged to adhere to the ancient holders towards its internal growth and its external prestige.
of spiritual offices as long as they have not disqualified In this connection we may particularly specify : the
themselves by misconduct (cp 13 33 216 42 44 592). accession not merely of slaves and people of the lower
True, this applies, so far as form is concerned, in the orders but also of rich and often influential persons,
first instance and especially, only to the Corinthians sometimes even from the immediate entourage of the
who are being addressed, but yet also to the Romans emperor ; the courage shown by martyrs there as else-
who are speaking of themselves in the plural number where; the zeal of outstanding personalities such as
(Cp 7 1 ; see OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 5 24). Valentinus and Marcion ; the activity of efficient men
T h e most obvious explanation is to be found in the such as ‘ Clement ’ and Ignatius ’ in labouring for the
supposition that the divergent views and practices establishment of the Catholic Church ; the labour
referred to were found in the different circles or congre- expended on various sides to advance far and near the
gations (&xX~ular) within the bounds of the one church cause of knowledge, of Christian practice, of edification,
-$ PKKX&a-whether that of Rome or that of Corinth. of consolation.
4155 4156
 ROME (EMPIRE) ROME (EMPIRE)
Marcion laid the foundations of a recognition of a The topography and history of Rome and of the Roman
written norm of truth, of belief ( K U ~ & V T ? ~ SdhvOsias, Empire is so vast a subject and is so fully dealt with by various
writersand in easily accessible works of reference that it has been
20. T + S xiuTaos), one gospel and ten deemed sufficient, in the space at OUI disposal, ;imply to touch
Epistles ( ~ EbayyPXtov
b Kai
literature. Pauline
upon the prphlem of the relation of Rome to Judaism and IO
ci 'AT~UTOXOS rT6 'AWJUTOXLK~V~), which early Christianity.
the church as it grew Cathoiic soon spread-far and Destined to play such an important part in the
wide and accepted-along with the older tradition- -
Dolitical and religious history of the lews. the EmDire
and the came into close touch with them for
as the touchstone of truth. Into this (ecclesiastical) 1.
canon Rome, according to the list discovered and the first time in the early days of the
published in modern times by Muratori, introduced a
larger collection of Old-Christian writings differing hut
-
Hasmoneans' revolt against the Dower of Svria.
About the year 161 B.C. Judas the Maccabee having
slightly in extent from the NT as that was finally fixed heard of the great fame of the Romans, sent an embassy
by well-nigh the whole of Christendom. Marcion also ' to make a league of amity and confederacy with them,
wrote an orthodoxly conceived ' Epistle' and 'Antitheses' and that they should take the yoke from them ; for they
or 'Separation of Law and Gospel' (Antitlteses or saw that the kingdom of the Greeks did keep Israel in
Separulio Zegis et mangelii) ; Valentinus was the author bondage ' [ I Macc. 8 I 8 ; cp z Macc. 1 1 3 4 , Jos. Ant.
of ' Epistles,' ' Homilies,' and ' Psalms.' Some un- xii. 106 Justin363). 'The mission was successful ; but
known writer prepared the Gospel according to Mark ; before the news arrived Judas was slain (I Macc. 9 1-18 ;
' Clement,' two ' epistles' to the Corinthians, of which Jos. A n t . xii. 111). I n 143 B.C. the alliance was
the first is a ' Treatise concerning Peace and Harmony ' renewed by the statesmanlike Jonathan (I hlacc.
( b r e u t r s m p i Eipjvqs Kal bpovoias). conceived, according 12 1-4 16 ; Jos. A n t . xiii. 58). On the death of Jonathan,
to its own description of itself ( 6 3 ~ in ) ~the interests of Simon, his brother and successor, like his predecessors,
peace in the churches, and especially in the matter of also sent to Rome to seek a renewal of friendship.
the election of elders, and the second is an ' Exhortation The ambassador, this time Numenius, was again
concerning continence (Zupflouhfa m p l &yKppa.reias, successful, and ' the Romans issued a decree to all the
151). Hermas wrote his Shepherd to stir up all to peoples of the East, announcing that they had entered
repentance ; ' Ignatius ' composed his Epistles' upon into a league of friendship with the Jews' (W. D.
love for the promotion of martyrdom and on behalf of Morrison, The J m s underRoman Ruk, 13). Hyrcanus,
right views in doctrine and in life. He and others again, Simon's son and successor, after the death of
contributed largely to the upbuilding of their own as Antiochus (129 B .c.), to escape paying any more the
well as other churches, where their epistles were diligently tribute which the Syrian had exacted, sent yet another
read. Thus the Roman leaders exercised influence in embassy to Rome, and again ' in accordance with the
ever-widening circles, and opened up the way, often settled principle of Roman policy in the East, the Jewish
quite unconsciously, for the spiritual predominance of mission was received in a friendly manner, their
their fellow-believers abroad. From the middle of the grievances were attentively heard, and a decree w a s
second century another element that had no small issued, ordering the Syrians to relinquish their claims
influence also was the effort after a one-man government to tribute, and declaring void whatever Antiochus had
of the church, first on the part of Rome alone, but done in JudEa in opposition to previous declarations
afterwards also on that of others who afterwards of the senate [Jos. Ant. xiii. 92x1 ' (Morrison, op. cit.
associated themselves with it in this. Polycarp of 16J). After this several causes combined to weaken
Smyrna, seeking for comfort a t the hands of Anicetus the power of the Syrians, so that the Jews no longer
of Rome in the matter of orthodox observance of Easter, had any cause to fear them.
still knows how to maintain his freedom of thought and Such were the first relations of the Jews with the Roman
Empire, if we are to trust tradition; but as Morrison again
action in another direction than that prescribed to him. observes (rg), 'some of these supposed alliances rest upon very
But one of his successors in the Asia Minor controversy slender historical foundations.' For further details we must
of the Quartodecimans, Polycrates of Ephesus, was refer the reader to the article MACCABEE~ (cp ISRAEL).
excommunicated by Victor of Rome and cut off from While the Roman Empire was becoming more and
the fellowship of the faithful (see Baur, Das Christenthum more imperialistic, within the Jewish nation was arising,
u. d . ChristZ. Kirche d e r drei Ersten Jahrh. 1853, through the play of new ideas, that spirit
2. Jewish
pdy-sp.t.~f faction which was to rend it asunder
pp. 14.1-157).In this manner the preponderance and
authoritativeness, and ultimately the supremacy, of the even in the face of a common foe (see
church of Rome had already come to be recognised in SADDUCEES, SCRIBES A N D P HARISEES ; cp I SRAEL ).
the East before the end of the second century. See again on the history of the period MACCABEES,
For the extensive literature dealing with our subject reference and JANNXUS. The disputes between Pharisees and
may he made, amongst others, to such studies on the supposed Sadducees did not end with words; in the contest
sojourn of Peter and Paul in Rome as those of between the soldiers of Alexander and the Pharisees
21. Biblio- A. Harnack, A C L ii. 1 1897 pp. 240.~44, 703;
710; C. Clemen, ' 1st Petmiin Rom gewesen. much blood w-as spilt. The struggle went on through-
PaphY. in Preuss. Jahrb. i g o r , pp. 404-417 ; C. ErF.s, out the reign of i\lexander, though towards the end
'Petrus nicht in Rom sondern in Jerusalem gestorben in he was able to subdue the Pharisees and their allies
Brieger's Ztschr.f: Kirchen-gesch. 19or, pp. '-47 161-231 ; on the Syrians; it continued dming the reign of Salome
the Jews in Rome in Sanday and Headlam, The E#. to fhe
Romans, 1895, xviii-xxv; Berliner, Gesck. der Juden in Row, Alexandra (78-69B. c.), in which John Hyrcanus, one
1893 ; E. Schiirer, Die GemeindeverfassungdcrJuden in Rom, of Alexander's sons was content to ect as high priest ;
1879 and GJVc31, iii. 1898, pp. 28-36 44-56. Alsoto thecomment- and into the reign of Aristobulus (69-63 B .c.),
aries on Romans such as those of Sanday-Headlam, 1895,
xviii-xliv; R. A. Lipsius in HCP), 1892, pp. 70-78; Meyer- Alexander's other son. It sapped the strength of the
Weiss(Q118go, pp. 16-22: to theNTintroductionssnchas thoseof nation so that it was ready to fall an easy prey to a
S. DavihsonP) 18c l r o g - r r 3 ; H. J. Holtnnann(S, 1892, pp. power that aimed at expansion. When the Romans,
232-236. Th. ?ah& 1g00, pp. 299.708 ; J. M. S. Raljon, 1901,
pp. 88-9;. See also "Romans (Epistle to the)' in Ency. Brit.(Qi, who for a time had been otherwise occupied, again
20727730 [1886] and OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, P A U L , turned their attention to the East, having been roused to
ROMANS, SIMON'PETER, in the present work. w. c. v. M. action by the revolt of Mithridatcs, king of Pontus, in
88 B.c., and when success had attended their arms in
ROME (EMPIRE). The Roman Empire has been the very neighbourhood of this people that had wantonly
supposed to be alluded to in Dan. 2 and 7, but the interpretatio:
'is one which the progress of history has shewn to be untenable reduced itself to a state of miserable weakness, it was
(Driver, DaniX, 98 ; see the whole discussion 94.102). .Rome natural and inevitable that the Roman Empire should
is referred to by name in biblical writings for 't e first t i y e in be further extended. Another civil war in Palestine
connection with Antiochus Epiphanes ; this 'sinful mot we
are told, had been a hostage at Rome ( I Macc. 1 IO, 6s $v $qva (66 B.c.) gave Pompey his opportunity. Hyrcanus,
i v 4*P&& influenced by the schemer .4ntipater, had plotted to
4'57 4158
 ROME (EMPIRE) ROME (EMPIRE)
overthrow Aristobulus. When, however, the Pharisees, Rome. But rbe new movement a t first met with no very
assisted by the Nabateans, were besieging Aristobulus great success. 'Christian Judaism appealed neither to
in the temple, Marcus Scaurus, one of Pompey's the Jew nor to the Gentile. The Jew refused to give
lieutenants, appeared on the scene, put an end to the np his characteristic rites ; the Gentile would not
fight, and set Aristobulus on the throne for a time a t submit to purely oriental institutions. Christian
least. The struggle between the two brothers soon Judaism was obliged to throw off more of its oriental
broke out again. This time Aristobulus, having trappings. Hence arose the purely Christian movement.
offended the Romans, was besieged by them in Jeru- This form of Christianity was probably represented by
salem. With the help of the Sadducees, and in spite the primitive gospel. But the evolutionary process was
of the Pharisees, he was able to hold out against the still at work. The struggle of ideas was now going o n
besiegers ; but in the end Pompey, attacking him on a with renewed vigour. The Roman empire had become
Sabbath ( 6 3 B .c.), broke through and inflicted severe a world-empire ; everything was tending towards a
punishment on the Jews. world-religion. 'Christianity' had long been in the
Judza was then regarded as a conquered province. air, or in other words, ' the fulness of time had come.'

_.__.~.
W e may venture to say with Morrison that the new
u'os?
arrangements that resulted 'were on the
This is admitted on all hands. 'If the Empire was the
greatest of hindrances to the gospel, it was also the greatest of
.
helps. . The single fact that the Em ire was universal went
:?it:. whole- a blessing to the peoples pf the
East, who were rescued from chaos and in-
stability, and enabled, after years of
far to complete the fulness of time for Zhrist's'coming. Rome
put a stop to the wars of nations and the great sales of slaves
resulting from them, to the civil strife of cities and their
anarchy, to enjoy the fruits of peace' (41). Graetz murderous revolutions. Henceforth they were glad to live
(Hist. 2 6 7 ) points out that the Judaean prisoners that quietly beneath the shelter of the Roman peace. Intercourse
and trade (witness the migratory Jews) were easier and freer
had been dragged to Rome, were to become the nucleus
of a community destined to carry on a new kind of
.
than ever since in Europe till quite recently. . This was
her [Rome's] work in history-to be the link between the
warfare against long-established Roman institutions, ancient and the modern-between the heathen city states of
ultimately to modify or partly to destroy them.' the ancient world and the Christian nations of the modern' (H.
M.Gwatkin, 'Roman Empire' in Hastings' BD). Cp Ramsay,
Certainly the war between the new and old ideas was C'Lurch in the Roman Empire, chap. 9, $5 6 ; also Seeley
to go on uninterruptedly until some adjnstment could Ecce Homo, I ; J., H. Muirhead in Tke Hibb. Journ. 115;
be effected. Under the Herods, when the Jews were [Oct. 1902], a criticism of Kidd's Principles of W. Civilisation;
J. M. Robertson, A Short Hist. of Christianity (1902).
again in large measure allowed to govern themselves,
the adoption of Hellenic culture was encouraged by the Writing of the state of the world towards the end of
rulers to such an extent that the people revolted against the first century, Kenan shows (see the references in his
it. The Jews determined to rid themselves of their notes) that ' expanded ideas of universal brotherhood
half- Jewish rulers. At the request of the people them- and a sympathy with humanity a t large, derived for the
selves they were at length put under the direct govern- most part from the Stoic philosophy, were the result of
ment of Rome. ' With the return of J u d e a to a Roman the broader system of authority and the less confined
administration begins the prelude of the destruction of education which had now assumed control. Men
Jerusalem and the Jewish people-perhaps the most dreamed of a new era and of new worlds. ..Maxims
shocking tragedy known to the history of the world' of common humanity became current, and the Stoics
(Cornill. Hist. of the PeopZe of ZsraeZ, 259). The earnestly taught the abstract notions of equality and
tragedy was due to the refusal of a large section the rights oi men. .. Love for the poor, sympathy
amongst the people, such as the Pharisees, the Zealots, for all, and charity, became virtues.' But at the same
and the Sicarii, to accept the inevitable-Roman rule time, as often happens during a period of transition,
and the spread of Graeco-Roman ideas. ' on tlie whole, the middle of the first century is one of
After Pompey's conquest ewish and Roman history are the worst epochs of ancient history.' Philosophers,
closely hound up together, andthe details have been sufficiently however, were doing much to bring about a reforma-
dealt with in ISRAEL, $$85-115, HEKOD, PILATEGOVERNMENT, tion, and ' there was as much grandeur in the struggle
JERUSALEM, SELEUCIDB, TRADE, and other sphal articles.
of philosophy in the first century as in that of
One of the problems of history is to discover the Christianity' (The AposfZes, ch. 17). But it was not
precise attitude adopted by the Romans towards merely a struggle of two independent forces against a
4. Rome and Judaism, on the one hand, and towards common foe. A struggle of ideas was going on within
Christianity on the other. W e know and between the two reforming agencies, and between
the that important concessions were made to both and the popular Roman religion. The conflict
the Jews and that on the whole they enjoyed a large resulted in the victory of neither one nor the other, but
measure of religious liberty. Unfortunately, however, in a compromise, in the evolution of a religion adapted
we are unable to treat the history of Josephus or the and adaptable to its surroundings-in other words in a
narratives of the N T as in all respects historically paganised Christianity.
accurate. As to Josephus, ' his persistent endeavour The primitive gospels seem to have been edited and
to make it apparent that his people were actually friends amplified in view of this development. W e have in
of the Romans, and in reality took up arms against ~. Romans in our present gospels, apart from the
them unwillingly, is a notable example of hiE colouring the Gospels. fact that there are doubtless ' gospels '
of the situation, and compels the acceptance of his (Gnostic, Ebionitic, and even Essenic)
assertions with some caution' (Riggs, Hist. of Jewish within the gospels, on the whole not a picture of what
People, 145 ; cp De Quincey, Works, 71318). As to really took place a t the rise of the Christian niovement,
the Gospels, it is admitted that their present form is but a representation coloured and suggested by the
due to editorial redaction. Christianity was no sudden ideas of a later age. Although therefore they may
growth. I t arose gradually, and only made its way by contain much correct information as to Roman ad-
slow degrees. It represents the result of that inter- ministration in Palestine, we can hardly trust them
play of Eastern and Western ideas which began under as to the general conduct of the Romans. To take
the D ISPERSION ( p . ~ . ) . Judaism, under the influence an instance, the Gospels suggest that the Romans
of Greek thought, had undergone during the disper- were interested in the new movement from the start,
sion a striking change. Later, the transition from but that the ruling Jews were almost persistently hostile
Graeco-Judaism to Christian Judaism, and from the to it (espec. Lk. [cp also Acts]; cp Ramsay. W a s
ideas of Philo to those accredited to Jesus, was easy Christ dorn at BethZ.? 6 7 8 ) . But the movement was
and natural. Even the stricter Judaism, itself, in the not such as to appeal to the Roman mind in the first
person of Hillel. helped to promote the new develop- instance, and the name of its founder 'appears only in
ment. The process was accelerated by contact with profane authors of a hundred years later, and then in
4159 4160
 ROPE RUBY
an indirect manner ..
.’ (Renan, Lqe Of/esus, ch. 28). of colchicum found in Palestine are enumerated by Tristram
(FFp 425).
Writings, such as the Gospels and the Acts, written in
the interest, or to explain the rise, of a religious niove- 2. The ,6660~ is referred to in Wisd. 2 8 (arc+@a
ment, are especially liable to be influenced by bias or t ~ ) , 2414 [IS] 39x3 (17), and 508 ( p
P 6 6 w ~ d h ~ t Ecclus.
tendency, so that there is every reason to treat them 3 ~ 3 y l; see Schechter and Taylor). What is commonly
with caution and critically to examine their statements called the ‘ Rose of Jericho,’ the Anastuiicn hieruntica,
before regarding them as strictly historical. In par- is certainly not meant by Ben Sira, when he speaks of
ticular, the accounts of the betrayal, trial, and execution the ‘rose-plants in Jericho.’ I n all these passages he
of the hero, whether we consider the part played by apparently means the rhododendron (Tristram, N H B
the Jews or by the Romans, are very difficult to under- 477; cp Schick, PEP@, 1900, pp. 63-65). In 3 Macc.
stand. W e niight naturally suppose that Jesus would 717, PTCILEMAIS [q.v.] is called $oS0+6pov [VI,or $060-
have been treated by the Romans as a political offender. @6vov [A]. The roses of Egypt are celebrated by the
Deliverers kept coming forward, we may be sure, in Roman poet Martial.
answer to the Jewish expectations. The Romans would Gratz even finds the Hebrew, or more strictly, New Hebrew
hardly have been likely to discriminate between the new word for roses in a passage of Canticles (4 13, @*i?i for pia).
Messiah and other agitators. Each and all would be This may be right (see col. 693); but cp Budde, a d l o c . On
177, ‘rose,‘ in hlishna, and its Syr. and Ar. cognates, see Liiw,
regarded equally as politically dangerous ; the career Arum. PNanzennamen, 131f: N. M.
of each and all would be abruptly terminated as soon
as the outskirts of the cities were abandoned and an ROSH (dN?; p w c [BAQ]), according to most, is
attempt was made to openly preach ‘ a new kingdom’ the name of a people In Asia Minor, which, like Meshech
in the market-place. W e have examples later of the and Tubal (confidently identified with the Moschi and
treatment which these prophets received. the Tibareni), belonged to the empire of GOG [q.v.]
For instance, to quote Cornill’s graphic description (Hist. 2 6 ) (Ewk. 38af: 391). I t is very strange, however, that
a certain Theudas . . . had summoned the eople to th: all the names of peoples in Ezek. 381-6, except Rosh
iardan where at his command the miracle of Josfua was to be and Paras (v.5), should occur in the Table of Nations
repeated. Fadus sent thither a company of cavalry, who
simply cut the people down and brought the head of Theudas in Gen. 10, and, from the conjunction of Tiras with
to Jerusalem.’ See THEUDAS. Meshech. and Tubal in Gen. 102,von Hammer long ago
It is difficult to believe that the Romans behaved as plausibly conjectured the identity of Tiras and Rosh.
they are reported to have done a t an earlier date, even It is noteworthy that in Judith 223 the ‘ sons of RASES ’
when it is admitted that the circumstances at the time ( q . ~ .and, cp TIRAS) are mentioned directly after Put
were rather different. It has been handed down again and. Lud, and it is natural to identify, first, Rasses with
that the Jews themselves, or a section of them, actually Rosh, and then, on the ground of the phenomena of the
anticipated Roman action, that they betrayed the Lat. MSS.,l Rasses with Tiras. This would produce
author of the new movement to the Romans and were the reading ‘ prince of Tiras.’
themselves allowed to play a chief part in carrying out This is decidedly better than explaining dNi ‘I, ‘ chief
his death-sentence. But this representation of the prince (of Meshech, etc.),’ as RVmS and Smend (after
Jewish attitude, as well as that of the Roman pro- Tg., Aq., Jer.). But the whole of the prophecy of
cedure, looks very much like a late attempt to take the Gog appears to need reconsideration (see P ROPHET ,
blame as far as possible o f f the shonlders of the § 27). If it is true that the prophet foretells a great N.
Romans and lay it on the Jews. The pagan-Christian Arabian invasion, we must suppose that mi, like Di,n and
movement, and the widening gap between J e w and w - v i n , is a corruption of ASjur (i>&;~),
the name of one
Christians, would give rise to a tendency to say as little of the peoples in N. Arabia bordering on the old Judahite
as possible in disparagement of the Romans, and as territory. Cp ‘ T A w m s H , TIHAS.
much as possible to bring odium on tha Jews; to Winckler would omit N - ~ as J a gloss on ejNi (‘chief’); but
adapt the teaching more and more to the mind of the this is too superficial a correction. is specially one of
Ezek.’s words (cp P RINCE , 2). T. K. C.
Roman, to make it diverge more and more from the
doctrines and practices of the Jews.
ROSH (dKi; pwc [ADL]), a Benjamite family name
Cp GOSPELS. On the representation of Roman administration (Gen. 4621). In the corresponding list in Nu. 2638f:
given in Acts, see ACTS. For other details see the special for Ehi Rosh Muppim we find Ahiram Shephupham,
articles on the R o m z n places, governors, etc., mentioned in
NT. See also CHRISTIAN (N A ME OF), GOVERNMENT, R OME and the three names probably grew out of the two either
(C HURCH OF), ROMANS, PAUL, PILATE,PROCURATOR, PRO- by a simple transposition of the letters & andI Sh (cp
VINCE, QUIRINIUS. M. A. C. C. J. Ball, S B O T ) , or in somesuchway as that explained
ROPE. For &%el. ‘&%tho and ni@pah, see C ORD, by Gray ( H P N 35).
and for ‘agmcn, Job412 140261 RV, AV ‘hook,’ see The M T in Gen., indeed, requires Rosh to make up its ten
‘sons ’ of Benjamin ( i k , fourteen ‘sons’ of Rachel ; v. 22) ; but
RUSH, 2 , and cp F I S H , § 5, n. I, col. 1529. LBJAL, although naming ten, preserves the original summation
nine (Le., eighteen ‘sons’ of Rachel). LBB is lacking at this
ROSE. 1. (n$yq; A N 8 0 C . Cant. 21 ; K p I N O N , point ; but 6 D sees the discrepancy and, since it retains Rosh,
changes the eighteen to nineteen.
Is. 35rf) is now usually taken, as in RV1llS, to be the
autumn crocus, Cokhicum autumnale, L . , or some ROSIN. I. $73,@YL, Ezek. 2717 AVmS See B A L M ,
kindred species. The Heb. word, &%z::JZe.?h, is closely
akin to Syr. &wn~uZZdythd,the meaning of.which is well 5 1. v+@a;
2. Song of Three Children, 23 (Dan. @ 3 4 6 ) AV,
assured (Low, 174). RV N A P H T H ~
The renderine.= ‘rose.’found in Kimhi and other Tewiqh writers.
seems to rest on mere conjectir;; c~i(y’itandsih O-Vgy-’Tg:
I

(but only .once in each), whilst ‘narc~ssus’is in Tg.’on dant.

RUBY. In E V ‘rubies’ represent pt‘nitinim, P W .P:..
1. Biblical six times (Job 28x8 Lam. 4 7 Prov. 315
.
and is upheld by Celsius (1 4 8 9 8 ) and others. Delitzsch ( P r d
8 2 8 )compares Ass. &u6a?rZZatu, ‘reed,’ and argues for the references. 8 1 1 20 15 31 IO) ; in Lamentations RVIw
word being a general name (cp 6 and Vg. of Cant. 2 I) for a has ‘corals’ ; in Job it has ‘red coral’
flower-stalk or a flowering plant. As Nbldeke (ZDMG4073o) and ‘ pearls. ’
and HalCvy(REj14r49) urge, however, the name must he
specific (at all events in Cant. 2 I ) : and the Aramaic word
provides a satisfactory parallel though, of course, this argument 1 Vet. Lat. reads Thiras et Rasis, with which Pesh. must
is not decisive against an Assy;ian connection.1 Various species originally have agreed : Thiras and Rasis represent different
readings of the same word.
1 [The Ass. comparison is accepted by Che. (Pvojh. Is.P,on 2 n y ~’b!,instead of W N i ‘I; m, a s Herz has remarked,
‘ Is.’ 2.c.) after discussion ; it is pointed out that the same plant- might e a d y fall out after w’v. Toy (Ezek. SBOT) has also
name often has a different reference in different countries. See combined the names Rosh and Tiras. The above was written,
also G e s . P ) s.v., who recognises the connection.] however, before the appearance of his work.
4161 4162
 RUDIMENTS RUMAH
The renderings of @ vary and (sometimes at least) manifestly Acts of Peter and Andrew, and .of others, Alexander
represent another text (in Job, xai ~ A K U O O V uogiav h t p m i and Rufus are mentioned as disciples of Andrew. who
Z d m s a [ENC, &&a, A] : Lam., h i p AiOovr ; Prov. 3 15 8 11 were his companions in the country of the barbarians ;
31 IO A\iOov ~ O A U T C A G;Y Prov. 20 15, wanting?); Vg. has a
diffe;ent rendering in each case (Job, trukitur autem sapienntiu cp R. A. Lipsius, Apokr. Ap.-ge~ch. 1533f. 617 621 ; 377
de occultis: Lam., e6ore antiquo: Prov. 3 15, cunctis oji6us; 79 83, E. 94 96.
8 TI , cunctispretiosissimis; 20 15, muZtitudogemnzarum; 31 IO, 2. Rom. 1613, as a Roman Christian, well known to
de uZtimis$nidus).
Paul and to the Christians in Rome as being ‘ the elect
2. In Is. 54 12 ( K ~ ~ U T UEzek. M O27S16) ,(xopxop [BQ], (or the chosen) in the Lord.’ We do not know the
K e p p p u s [A]) RV has ‘rubies,’ but AV ’agate’ and force of this expression. Weizsacker thinks that it
AV’”g. [Ezek.] ‘ chrysoprase,’ for i+ kadkid. See hints at some special circumstances connected with his
AGATE, CHRYSOPRASE. conversion. B. Weiss, Sanday - Headlani interpret :
3. In Ex. 2817 Ezek. 2813 RVme. has ‘ruby’ for ‘eminent as a Christian.’ In any case it will be an
o$, ‘fidem. epitheton ornuns to celebrate the friend of Paul, the
T h e question whether rubies are referred to in the supposed author, who goes on to salute ‘his mother
-
OT mav at first sight amear rather comolicated. It is
1.

a. Identifica- not so, however, in reality. The claims

and mine,’ as if the Roman wife had once kindly treated
him, who had not yet been in Rome. The list of greet-
of ‘rubies’ as a rendering of p2ninim ings in Rom. 16 is not historical ; the names and the
tion. additions are fanciful ; cp ROMANS (E PISTLE). Accord-
,
have long since Dassed into abevance
Y .:
the revisers of AV, it is clear, only acquiesce in certain ing to Epiphanius this Rufus was reckoned among the
cases in AV’s rendering ‘ rubies ’ from a feeling of un- seventy ’ others’ (apostles), Lk. 1 0 1 . A Spanish local
certainty as to the absolute correctness of the marginal tradition makes him the first bishop of Tortosa, conse-
renderings which they propose. On the correctness of crated by Paul. Another tells us that he was conse-
their renderings we may refer to C ORAL , P EARL , and crated bishop of the Egyptian Thebes by Peter. His
with regard to Lam. 47 (where the strange statement, birthday is said to have been the 8th or the 19th April ;
’ they were more ruddy in body than rubies,’ is ventured cp Lipsius, 2222 227, E 242.
upon in EV) to L AMENTATIONS [BOOK], 5 5, S APPHIRE . 3. Polycarp, Phil. 9 1 ; cp Eus. HE iii. 3613, a s a
If the precious stone called ‘idem is really from companion of the martyrs Ignatius and Zosimus, com-
Jalt+3 to be red,’ and not rather from the name of memorated every year on 18th Dec. at Philippi, accord-
Edom.‘ it is most plausible to identify it with the ing to Martyrol. Rom.
carnelian (see S ARDIUS ). W e have, therefore, only It is difficult to say whether these three, or any two
the passages Is. 5412 Ezek. 27 16 to deal with. Here of them, originally indicate the same person.
the greatest weight is due to Prof. Ridgeway’s remark W. C. V. M.
(CARBUNCLE, col. 702),that there is no proof that the RUG (?I?@’), Judg. 418 R V t ; see col. 509, n. 4.
ruby, which is found only in Ceylon and in Burmah,2
was known to the Hebrews any more than it was to the RUHAMAH. See LO-RUHAMAH.
Greeks till after the time of Theophrastus. If the n4hek
is the mafhat-stone of the Egyptians (see C ARBUNCLE . RULE (Q), I s . 4 4 1 3 AV, RV L INE (4.v. 2). Cp
end), the kadkid might conceivably be the garnet : on H ANDICRAFTS , 2.
the possible root-meaning (to emit fire, as a fire-stick),
see Ges. -Bu. and BDB. W e must not, however, ignore RULER. On the wide use of general terms of this.
the possibility (see C HALCEDONY , I , end) that the true nature, cp what has been said under the headings
reading of the word is, not ’1373, but 1373 (r for d). C APTAIN , G OVERNOR . OFFICER.
Both for the stone called ’&em and for that called (as The different Hebrew and Greek terms thus rendered
we now assume) 7373, the name of a country may be are as follows :-
surmised as the origin-viz., in the case of ’idem,
I. Sean, see DEPUTY, I.
Edom, and in that of 1373, Jerahmeel (such corruptions 2. iar, see P RINCE, 3, and cp A RMY, B 4, GOVERNMENT, 5 21,
of this name turn out to be common) ; 3 the stones KING.
so designated may in fact have reached the Hebrews 3. migrd, see P RINCE, I .
4. nzB@a, Hos. 4 IS, lit. SHIELD [g.u.]-the text is not certain.
from N. Arabia, and so have been called respectively 5. r n 8 2 (a ‘ruler’ in the general sense, Gen. 45 8 Prov. 6 7
the Edomite and the Jerahmeelite stone. C p S ARDIUS , MI. 5 2 [I]), see GOVERNOR, 11.
TOPAZ. 6. ZaZZZ!, see GOVERNOR, 9.
The true or Oriental ruby is a red variety of corundum or 7. d p x ~ w v ~ ~ u yMk. o s , 5 22, see SYNAGOGUE, 8 9 .
native alumina of great rarity and value and to be distinguished 8. d p X l r p b A r v o r Jn. 28f see MEAL $ 11.
from the spinel (an aluminate of magueiiurn), which is of much 9. r o A c s L p X ~ s , hcts 17 6’8) (ruler of‘ the city), see THES-
less estimation as a gem stone. The phraseology of ancient SALONICA.
writers was even more confused than that now current, for they IO. mapxoi, 2 Macc. 4 27 AV (RV ‘governor ’), see Sos-
appear to have classed together under a common name such as TRATUS, and
the cnr6nnculus of Pliny or the Hv.9 a t of Greek wdters, not 11. Bp the most widely-used of all terms both in LXX and
OY,
only (perhaps) our two kinds of ru$, hut also garnets and NT, ,ap$ied, e g . , to rulers of nations (Mt. 20 q),magistrates
other inferior stones of a fiery colour. See further S TONES and judges (Lk. 12 58 Rom. 13 3), officers and members of the
[PRECIOUS]. T. K. C.
Sanhedrin (Mt. 9 18 23 Lk. 841 23 13 35 Jn. 3 I ) . to esus the
‘ruler’ of the kings of the earth (Rev.15), and to Jatan the
RUDIMENTS (CTOIXEIA), Col. 2820 EV, RVrng. ‘prince ’ (so EV) of devils (Mt. 9 34).
ELEMENTS (4.v.).
RUMAH .(?IPt7), the birthplace of Zehidah or
RUE (rrHr6rNON [Ti. WH]) is once mentioned (Lk. Zebudah, Jehoiakim’s mother ( 2 K. 2336 [EK] KPOYMA
11 42t) as a small garden herb ; in the parallel passage [B], [EK] p. [A], [EKlhOBfNNe. [L] ; Jos. A n t . x. 52,
Mt. 2323 anise and cunimin are mentioned instead. €5 ~ B O Y M A C i.e., APOYMAC), has been thought (see
According to Tristram (NNB 478) Ruia graveolcnr is at this HWBP)) to be the p o y of~ Eusebius~ (OS(2)288ro,
day cultivated in Palestine, whilst Ruia 6racteosu is a common
wild plant. Cp Low, no. 317. POYMA H KM a p i a , l in his time called PEM@IC)#
with which he identifies Arimathaea, unless 11 2 Ch. 365
RUFUS ( p o y @ o c [Ti. WH]) occurs several times in (@E* not MT) be correct in giving Ramah for Rumah
Old-Christian literature. (so Pesh. in 2 K.). It is the modern Rantieh in the
I. Mk. 1521,as the son of S IMON OF C YRENE and plain N. of Diospolis (Lydda). There were, however,
the brother of A LEXANDER (4q.v.). In the Apocryphal several places called Rumah. Another is referred t o
in the Talmud as Ruma and once as Aruma (Neub.
See TARSHISH [STONE] $ 3 . Gkog. du Tdm. 203); this seems to be the Galilean
a C ‘ The Ruby Mines :n Upper Burmah,’ Cornhill Maga-
sine, gec. 1,gm.
3 Cp, for instance, ‘Calcol,’ I K.431 [5 111. 1 See above, col. 297, n. 2.

4163 4164
 RUNNERS RUTH, BOOK OF
Ruma of Josephus (BJiii.7~1),which may be the whose impulse to follow Naomi to her home in Judah
mod. Riimeh, on the S. edge of the plain of Bagauf, was less effectual than Ruth’s, was named Orpah, a
about 6 ni. N. of Nazareth. name which suggests the meaning ‘ obstinacy.’ Hence,
ARUMAH [ g . ~ . ]in Judg. 9 41 is at first sight excluded hy its following Pesh., it is usual (cp Geiger, Urschv. 5 0 ) to
northern situation. Probably, however, the original story spoke explain Ruth as a contraction of RB‘iith, L e . , ’ the
of Ahimelech as king of Cusham in the Negeb (see SHECHEM). companion,’ ‘ one who lovingly attaches herself.’ See,
If so, it is plausible to identify Arumah with the Rumah of however, for other explanations, RUTH [BOOK], 5.
2 K., because of the matrimonial connections between the kings
of Judah and the Negeb. Like ‘Ramah’(which, indeed, Pesh; The account of her levirate-marriage with Boaz is
reads in z K. and @BA in thesupplement to z Ch. 16 j), ‘ Rumah given with archaeological fulness as an obsolete custom.
and ‘ Arumah’ probably come from ‘ Jerahmeel ; the place so Cp SHOES ( e ) .
designated was of Jerahmeelite origin. T. K. C.
[By old Hebrew law, as hy the old law of Arabia, a wife who
RUNNERS (D’y?). See CHARIOT, 5 I O; A RMY , had been brought into her husband’s house by contract and pay.
ment of a price to her father was not set free by the death of her
§ 4 (col. 314). husband to marry again a t will. The right to her hand lay with
the nearest heir of the dead. Originally we must suppose,
RUSH, RUSHES. I. ~ g igdine’ , ( ~ x . 2 3[syro- among the Hebrews as among the Arabs, this law was all to the
hex., Ald., 15 TTAUYPOC ; so Aq.’ Sym., d om.], Job disadvantage of the widow, whose hand was simply part of the
811[ r r a ~ y p o c ] Is. BYBhlNbCIt 357’
, IS~CETTICTOAAC dead man’s estate ; hut, while this remained SO in Arabia to the
time of Mohammed, among the Hebrews the law early took
[~Aoc]?) is almost certainly the papyrus (cp d Ex. quite an opposite turn : the widow of a man who died childless
[?I, Job), the Hebrew name being derived from was held to have a right to have a son begotten on her by the
next kinsman, and this son was regarded as the son of the dead
Coptic kum. This plant ( C y p r u s Pupyvus, L. ), which
and succeeded to his inheritance so that his name might not be
was a characteristic growth along the Nile banks in cut off from Israel. The duty of raising up a son to the dead
ancient Egypt,3 and still occurs in several localities in lay upon his brother, and in Dt.25 j is restricted to the case
Palestine, rises to a height of about six feet, with a when brothers li*ie together. In old times, as appears from
triangular tapering stem : see P APYRI , § I. Its stem Gen. 38, this was not so, and the law as put in the book of Ruth
appears to be that the nearest kinsman of the dead in general
supplied material for the making of boats, sails, mats, had a right to ‘redeem for himself’ the dead man’s estate, but
cloth, cords, and, above all, writing material. In at the same time was bound to marry the widow. The son of
particular, its use for the construction of light Nile this marriage was reckoned as the dead man’s son and succeeded
to his property, so that the ‘redeemer’ had only a temporary
boats is mentioned by Theophrastus, Pliny, and other usufruct in it. Naomi was too old to be married in this way,
ancient writers (cp EGYPT, 5 8, end), and explains the hut she had certain rights over her husbands estate which the
references in Ex. 23 Is. 182, and probably also Job 926 next kinsman had to buy up before he could enter on the
(see RV”‘g., but cp REEDS, OSPRAY). property. And this he was willing to do, but he was not willing
also to marry Ruth, and beget on her a son who would take the
2. lim3, ’ugmk. (Is. 9 14 [13] 19 15 58 5 ( K ~ ~ o E Job
), name and estate of the dead and leave him out of pocket. He
412 [4Oz6, ~ p . ]41z06[rz]t) is a word for ‘marsh reed,’ therefore withdraws and Boaz comes in his place. That this is
the sense of the transaction is clear : there is, however a little
derived from ’Zgum,m ~ a, ‘marsh’ or ‘pool’ (Barth, obscurity in 4 5 where (see Vg. Pesh.) one letter has fillen out
NB 341),and very probably to be identified with Arundo and we must ’(with Cappellu;, Geiger, Berthean, etc.) read
niT-nN 011 and translate ‘What day thou huyest the field from
Donan, L. (cp Tristram, N H B 436f.). In Is. 914[13] Naomi th:u must also buy Ruth,’ etc. Cp m. gA-w. R. s.1
19 7 5 the ’agmOn or ‘ reed ’ is contrasted with the kappuh
( n ? ) or ‘ palm-branch,’ the latter indicating those in The notice in Ruth 47 has caused some difficulty.
high position and the former the humbler classes in the Kalisch (Bible Studies, 1 [1877] 61) actually suggests
state-so d (below, n. 4). I n Is. 585 among the that n& (EV ‘in former time’) may perhaps mean
spurious tokens of pretended piety is mentioned that ‘from olden times.’ Driver (Zntr.P) 455), who ap-
of bowing the head as the head of the reed is bent by parently finds 47 and 418-22 the only passages which
the flow of the stream in which it grows ; cp I K. 1415 may indicate a late date, thinks that, while 418-22
Mt. 117. ‘forms no integral part of the book,’ 47 ‘has every
appearance of being an explanatory gloss,’ and corn-
In Job 41 z 140 261 the name is transferred to the rope or cord pares the admitted gloss in I S . 99, which begins with
(see RV) of reed used to noose the crocodile : and in Job 41 20
[121 the hot vaporous breath of this animal is compared to the 5uiwq o~J&. This is a perfectly legitimate view,
steam 2f ‘ a seething pot’ and (see RV) the smoke of '(burning) though it entails an alteration of the text in v. 8. But
rushes. [In both pasages the text is doubtful. On Job 41 2 we may ask this question : Supposing that the custom
see FISH, 5 5 , and n. I, where Oi;, ‘ring’is proposed as a n referred to in 4 7 had become antiquated, was not such
emendation, and on Job41 20 see Budde, who (with Bi., Du., an explanatory notice called for? T. K. C.
Beer) reads @k!, ‘and boiling.’] N. M.-W. T. T.-D.
RUTH,BOOK OF. The story of R UTH ( q . ~ .forms )
RUST. I . ?I&!,& l ’ E h ; IOC. in Ezek.24611f. one of the O T Hagiographa, usually reckoned as the
of ‘the bloody city, that caldron full of rust [AV ‘scum ]where- 1. originalsecond of the five Megilloth or Festal
from the rust is not yet gone. poeition. Rolls. This position corresponds to the
2. @pOurr, in Mt. 6 igf: of ‘moth and rust’ (dp .ai ,¶pCurr)
which consume ‘treasure. Jewish practice of reading the book a t
3. 16s, in Jas. 53, spoken of rusting gold and silver. the Feast of Pentecost ; Spanish MSS, however, place
Ruth a t the head of the Megilloth (see C ANTICLES );
RUTH (nn, poye, L-i),
a Moabitish woman, and the Talmud, in a well-known passage of Bcfbi
the heroine of the Book of Ruth. Through her marriage
with Mahlon. and subsequent marriage-at -law with
BathrE (146), gives it the first place among all the
Hagiographa. On the other hand, 6 and the Vul-
Boaz (in the name of Mahlon), she became an ancestor
gate make Ruth follow Judges. It has sometimes been
of David, who, according to our present text, was a
held (e.,<., by Ewald, Hist. 1156 ; Bertheau, Richter u.
native of Bethlehem in Judah. Ruth‘s noble unselfish-
Ruth,(’) 292) that this was its original place in the
ness was thus rewarded (cp Ruth212). Her sister,
Hebrew Bible also, or rather that Ruth was originally
reckoned as an appendix to Judges, since it is only by
1 Aq. gives aarrupsiv for 710, Ex.2 j ; Vg. pugurion.
doing this, and also by reckoning Lamentations to
2 AV has ‘ bulrushes ’ in Ex. 2 3 (RVmg. ‘ papyrus ’), Is. 18 z
(RV ‘papyrus’), ‘rush’ in Job811 (RVmg. ‘papyrus’), and
Jeremiah, that all the books of the Hebrew canon can
rushes ’ in Is. 35 7. be reduced to twenty-two, the number assigned by
3 It is said to be now extinct in Egypt-thus Boissier (FZ. Or; Josephus and other ancient authorities. I t has been
5375) ‘olim in Egypto, ubi destructus nunc esse videtur. shown elsewhere (C ANON . $5 11-14),however, that the
Tristram : ‘no longer found in Africa, excepting in marshes of
the White Nile in Nubia, 7’ N. latitude’ (NHB 433). argument for the superior antiquity of this way of
4 In both cases @ paraphrases, fi+v K a i f i ~ ~ p band
v ipxiv reckoning breaks down on closer examination, and.
rai r U o r . whilst it was very natural that a later rearrangement
5 @ ‘iv0p&ov (Oh?). should transfer Ruth from the Hagiographa to the
416s 4166
 RUTH, BOOK O F RUTH, BOOK O F
historical books, and place it between Judges and the histories just mentioned, an advantage, it is true,
Samuel, no motive can be suggested for the opposite of which the Targum (see 1s f : ) endeavours to deprive
change. That the book of Ruth did not originally it. By the tone of simple piety and graciousness which
form part of the series of ' Former Prophets' (Judges- pervades it, and by its freedom from the pedantry of
Kings) is further probable from the fact that it is quite legal orthodoxy, the book reminds us of the prologue to
untouched by the process of ' prophetic ' or Deuterono- the colloquies of Job and the older poetical wisdom.
inistic editing, which gave that series its present shape Legalism, then, w a s still far from having triumphed in
at a time soon after the fall of the kingdom of Judah ; the field of literature when the story of Ruth was written ;
the narrative has no affinity with the point of view which even a superficial student cannot close his eyes to this
iooks on the whole history of Israel as a series of ex- important fact.
amples of divine justice and mercy in the successive The necessity of a somewhat late date will appear also
rebellions and repentances of the people of God. But from the following - stylistic
. and linguistic considerations.
if the book had been known at the time when the 3. Linguistic That the style of the narrative lacks the
history from Judges to Kings was edited, it could freshness and popularity which distinguish
hardly have been excluded from the collection; the data. the best sections of the Books of Samuel
ancestry of David was of greater interest than that of must be apparent, and upon examining closely the
Saul, which is given in I S. 91,whereas the old history linguistic details, we shall probably become convinced
names no ancestor of David beyond his father that a pre-exilic origin is impossible. The learned
Jesse. Benedictine Calniet (Dictionnuire historique et o - i t i p e ,
As to the date. A very early period is clearly impos- 1722, art. ' Ruth '), indeed, following B66i bathmd,
sible. The book does not offer itself as a document 146, ascribes the composition to the author of the
2. Date. written soon after the period to which it Books of Samuel, a view which he supports by re-
refers; it presents itself as dealing with ferring to the phrases, 'Yahwe do so to me and more
times far back, and takes obvious delight in depicting also,' Ruth 1 1 7 (cp I S. 317. and ten other passages in
details of antique life and obsolete usages (on Ruth Sam. and Kings), ' t o uncover the ear,' Ruth 44 (cp I S .
41-12, see R UTH ); it views the rude and stormy 9 15, and six other passages in Sam. ). For other points
period before the institution of the kingship through of contact between Ruth and Sam. and Kings, see 415
the softening atmosphere of time, which imparts to and I S.18 ( pam) ; 119 and I S. 4 5 I K. 1 4 5 (ohe~); 4 I
the scene a gentle sweetness very different from the and I S. 21 3 2 K. 68 (.>&x 7 3 5 8 ) ; 23 and I S. 6 9 2026
harsher colours of the old narratives of the book of (;np, ' accident '), and the second fem. sing. imperf.
Judges. [We cannot therefore very well say with Dr. in].-, 2821 3418 I S. 114(also Is.4510 Jer.3122). These
C . H. H. Wright (Introd. 126) that the book 'must coincidences, however, are outweighed, not only by the
have been written after the time of David, and long difference of style (in the more general sense) between
prior to the Exile.'] Indeed, the interest taken in Ruth and Sam., but also by certain forms and expressions
the pedigree of David points to a time when ' David ' found in Ruth but not found in Sam., some of which at
had become a symbol for the long-past ideal age. In least point distinctly to a post-exilic age.
the language, too, as we shall see presently (see 5 3).
The following forms and idioms (to which add the second fem.
there is a good deal that makes for and nothing that sing. imperf. in I*-; see above)are post-classical and mostly post-
makes against a date subsequent to the captivity, and exilic or exilic in use-the second fern. sing. erf. in y,-, 33f:
the very designation of a period of Hebrew history (also in Jer. [often], Ezek. 16 Mic. 4 13 [hardly kcah's]) ;
as 'the days when the judges judged' (Ruth11) is K;p for "E,Mara, 1zo(cp parallels in Ezek. 2731 365 etc.);
based on the Deuteronomistic additions to the book of ]Jp, 'to shut up,' 113 (Mishnic, Jewish Aram., Syriac, hut cp
Judges (216,f), and does not occur till the period of Driver) ;
the Exile. PP, 'to confirm,' 4 7 (also Ezek. 136 Esth. 9 21 27 29 31 f: Ps.
An inferior limit for the date of the book cannot 119 28 106, and in [Aram.] Dan. 6 E) ;
be assigned with precision. Kuenen formerly argued st','to hope,' 113 (Esth. 9 I Ps. 119 166);
(0nd.P)l [1861] 212 214) that, as the author seems 395 N@, 'to take a wife,' 1 4 (Ezra 9 2 12 Neh. 1325 I Ch.
to take no offence at the marriage of Israelites with
23 22 etc., hut not Judg. 21 23 [Buddel);
Moabite women, he must have lived before the time I&, 'therefore,' 113 (as in Aram. Dan. 2 6 etc.); cp Driver.
of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra9 Neh.13); but the
same argument would prove that the Book of Esther It is also well worth noticing that the divine name or
was written before Ezra, and indeed, as Wellhausen title *io (exilic and post-exilic in use) occurs in Ruth
(Bleek's 205) points out, the singular Talmudic 1zof1 (without 53), as often in J o b E w a l d rightly coni-
statements respecting the descent of eminent Jewish pares Job 27 2. and (against the view that Rnth is written
teachers from supposed heathen proselytes of antiquity in a pre-exilic N. Israelitish dialect) that the relative is
(Sisera, Sennacherib, Nebuchadrezzar, Haman- see always v j u . never (cp Konig, EinL 286).
R AHAB ) appear to imply a theory very similar to According to Konig (EinZ. 287). the book in its
that of the Book of Ruth, which nevertheless had present form belongs, on linguistic grounds, to the
no polemical bearing on the practical exclusiveness of period of Jer., Ezek., and the Second Isaiah, whilst
the prevalent custom. W e cannot therefore assert marks of the later Hebrew are wanting. Whatever
that the Book of Ruth was not written later than may seem 'to point to an earlier period (e.g., the use of
about 444 B.C. the older form >JIWseven times, and of 'iu only twice)
At the same time it must be admitted that the story this eminent linguistic critic regards as conscious archaiz-
of Ruth was written before the living impulses of Jewish ing. It should be remarked, however, that portions of
literature had been choked by the growing influence of Jeremiah can be shown to be of very late date, and
legalism. As Ewald remarks, ' we have here a narrator that the unity of the date of authorship for Is. 40-66 is
of a perfectly individual character,' who. 'without doubted by an increasing number of scholars. Konig's
anxiously concealing by his language all traces of the dating, then, is necessarily subject to revision, and so.
later age in which he wrote, had obviously read himself still more, is that of Driver (Introd.(6) 455), who em-
into the spirit of the ancient works both of history and barrasses himself with the theory that Canticles and
of poetry, and thus produces a very striking imitation Ruth (although included in the Hagiographa) may have
of the older work on the kings' (Hist.1154f:). The been written in the N. kingdom, and preserve words
manner, however, in which he tells the story is equally current there dialectically. The book, in its present
remote from the legal pragmatism of Chronicles and
from the prophetic pragmatism of the editor of the older 1 The passage, as Ewald (Hist. 1154) points out, is highly
histories. His work has therefore some advantage over poetical.
4x67 4168
 RUTH, BOOK OF RUTH, BOOK OF
form, must surely on linguistic grounds he regarded as ' Ephrath ' itself (like the ' Perath ' of Jer. 14 4-7) is possibly a
a post-exilic work, and we shall see later that, even if mutilated form of ZAKEPHATH [ q . ~ . ] , and 'Moab may he
a substitute for 'IMissur' (cp Moxs $ 14) a region to the
it is to some extent based on an earlier folk-story, the S. of the country called'sarephathite0r)Ephra;hite. Elimelech,
skill of the artist has enabled him so to expand, to Mahlon, and Chilion-the two latter of which have been so
enrich, and to fuse his material that it is virtually all fatally misunderstood as if they were symbolical names-are
no doubt clan-named (or different forms of the same clan-
his own work, and that a later editor has only touched name) derived from the great ethnic name Jerahmeel.
the proper names and appended the genealogy. ' Orpah ' bas Frobably arisen by 'metathesis ' from ' Ophrah'
Wellhausen is of opinion that the most important sign -i.e., 'Ephrath.' Ruth (Re'uth, cp Pesh.) is probably the
of date is the genealogy -. of David (Ruth 4 18-22, cp I Ch.
fem. of Rc'u (Gen. 1118 x),which is surely equivalent to
Re'uel ; now Re'uel a pears in Gen. 36 4 as a son of Esau, and
e 210-17). The names of the ancestors his name is most progably a distortion of Jerahmeel, a name
of David were known as far as Boaz. which in its various broken forms attached itself to different N.
Then memory failed, and a leap was made in I Ch. 211 Arabian clans. Naomi (No'omi) is doubtless connected with the
Ruth 421 to Salma (in Ruth, Salmon), who, in I Ch. clan-namesNa'ami Na'amani.1 ' Boaz'(ly2)is less transparent ;
hence Stucken ana Winckler do not hesitate to identify the
2 5 1 , is called 'the father of Bethlehem.' But Salma original Boaz with a mythological figure. But the place of the
belongs to the same group as Caleb, Abi, and Hur, bearer of this name in the genealogy, as well as in the story of
and, ' if anything is certain, it is this-that in the olden Ruth, shows that he too must have a clan-name,xand remember-
ing the ' Ezbi' ( ' 3 1 ~ )of r Ch. 1137, which corresponds to q.1~
times the Calibbites dwelt in the S. and not in the N. (MT) or rather 3 2 1 (cp @EA) in 2 S. 23 35-i.e., to *!mvm,
~
of Judah, and that David in particular by his birth Jer&me'eli,' we may restore as the original name 2 i y , 'ArXb.
belonged, not to them, but to the older part of Israel, 13Y, 'Obed,' too, is probably by metathesis from 22&!, Arabia.3
which gravitated in the opposite direction to Israel The statement of the narrator then, if the present
proper, and stood in the closest connection with Ben- writer's conjectures are sound, aniounts to this-that a
jamin.' Wellhausen adds that a of the other members member of a Jerahmeelite clan who belonged to Beth-
of the genealogy Nahshon and Ainminadab are princes jerahmeel (in the Negeb) removed with his family,
of Judah in P, whilst Ram is the firstborn of Hezron under the pressure of famine, into the land of MiSSur,
( I Ch. 2 2 5 ) , and by the meaning of his name ( ' the high and sojourned there for about ten years. This agrees
one ') is, like Abram, qualified to be the starting-point with the original form of the story in Gen. 12 IO 8 ,
of the princely line.' On the other hand, Sam. only according to which Abram ( = father of Jerahmeel ')
knows of David's father Jesse.' removed from the same cause from the Jerahmeelite
[The argument that Salma is a tribe foreign to old Judah,
which was not 'father' of Bethlehem till after the Exile. has country to MiSSur or Misrim (see MIZRAIM,5 26).
been very generally admitted, and seemed to Robertson Smith Anotherrllel story is that of the Shunammite woman who
in 1886 to decide the post-exilic origin of the genealogy. The was warne by Elisha of the approach of a famine and went to
present writer, however, cannot see his way to follow his prede- the land of the ' Philistines' ( 2 K. 8 1-3) ' the original story, the
cessor in this particular ; the genealogy is no doubt post-exilic, present writer thinks (cp SHUNEM), reprisented her as a dweller
hut is not proved to be so by Wellhausen's criticism of the proper in the Jerahmeelite Negeb (still in Israelitish occupation), and
names, all of which appear really to refer to Jerahmeelite-i.e., as ping farther S. to the land of Sarephath (in a wide sense
N. Arabian-clans and localities.2 But he heartily agrees with oft e phrase).
W. R. Smith that 'the genealogy in I Ch. 2 103 is quite in the h'or was it only famine that drove dwellers in the
manner of other genealogies in the same book.'] Negeb to the neighbouring land of Mksur. The original
That the genealogy was borrowed from Chronicles and text of I S . 2 2 3 5 seems to have represented David as
added to Ruth by a later hand seems certain, for the placing his father and mother under the protection of
author of Ruth clearly recogiiises that ' Ohed was legally the king of Missnr a t Sarephath (see MIZPEH,3). while
the son of Mahlon, not of Boaz ' ( 4 5 IO). [Driver, too, he was himself a wanderer in the land of Jerahmeel,
remarks (Intr~d.(~) 455) that the genealogy 'may well and there is, in the present writer's opinion, hardly
have been added long after the hook itself was written,' room for doubt that David lived in, or close to, the
and, like Konig (287),leaves out of the linguistic data Jerahmeelite Negeh (see NEGEB, 3, and note 3), and
for the solution of the problem of age, tfZJd5th and had strong Jerahmeelite (and Misrite) affinities. The
h d i d , which are characteristic of P in the Pentateuch latter passage is specially important, because the osten-
(cp G E N E A L O G IE S i., I). Bertheau, Kuenen, and sible object of the writer of Ruth is to prove the descent
Budde adhere to the view that the closing section is an of David from a noble-minded Misrite woman.4 It
integral portion of the book. But surely], if the author was natural to represent that David's ancestor had al-
had given a genealogy, he would have traced it through ready set the example of taking refuge in MisSur.
Mahlon. The existence, however, ot the genealogy We are not expressly told that ' Tarephath '-ie., that
suggests the possibility that two views of the descent of portion of hlissur which lay nearest to and included the
David were current, one of which traced him to Perez city of Sarephath-was the locality to which Elimelech
by Mahlon, and the other to the same Perez by Boaz. and his family repaired. But the connection of Sare-
[We have arrived a t this point without having been phath with Moses, with the Levites, and apparently with
obliged to interfere with the traditional text. I t is, how- the prophets, conjectured by the present writer (see
5. proper ever, necessary to take that step if we would MOSES, 4 ; PROPHECY, 6). makes it seem to him
names. obtain a more complete comprehension of
the narrative and of its historical origin.
not improbable that the narrator had this place or
district in his mind, and in 4 1 2 the kindly wish is ex-
That Ruth, as it now stands, is a post-exilic work is pressed that the house of Roaz might he like the house
certain ; we must therefore examine the text in connec- of a Peres ' (from ' Sarephath ' ?) whom Tamar ( =Jerah-
tion with that of other not less certainly post-exilic meelith ? j bore to Judah.
works, in the study of which we have already reached
results which, though in points of detail subject to 1 Many Benjamite clan-names appear to the present writer
revision, yet on the whole seem to throw considerable to he demonstrably of N. -4rabian origin.
a Stucken's connection of the name with astral mythology
light on ancient editorial processes. W e shall thus s t r a Z m y f h , 2 0 5 , note) will hardly stand examination.
find reason to suspect that the personal and geo- 'A3 3 ~ (Jesse),
- too, very possibly comes ultimately from *jrynr;*
graphical names in the Book of Ruth (11-417)were (Ishmaehte), a term which did not originally belong exclusively
not altogether originally as they now stand. to nomads. The names of the ancestors of David in the gene.
Bethlehem-judah,as in the strange storiesappended to Judges, alogy are, as suggested above (s 4), exclusively K.Arabian clan-
is a corruption or distortion of Beth-jerahmeel, the name of some names.
4 Budde ( Z A TW 12 [1892144)thinks that the notice in I S.
place in the region called Ephrath in the south, possibly, but 22 3 does not imply a race-connection between David and the
by no means probably, the same as the place known as Cannel. Moabite (i.e. Misrite) king or chieftain. David, he thinks, had
to negotiate kith the king whereas if his grandmother had been
I Bleek's Ei9tZ.P) 204 J ,ProLP) 227 [ET 217 /I; 9 De a Rloabite, this would hive been unnecessary. But this is to
Gent. 16J The passage in E i n 2 . W is mostly reprinted in C H press the words too strongly ; and indeed (assuming the tradi-
(3) 233-235. tion to be historical) tact may have required that David should
35g-%reckon the Negeh a5 the N. Arabian borderland. represent the desired protection as a favour.
4'69 4170
 RUTH, BOOK OF RPE
The view here taken renders it probable that the story Israelites often intermarried with Jerahmeelites and
of Ruth as it now stands is not of very early post-exilic Misrites. Besides, in order to produce an impression
For the feeling of bitterness towards on the Jews it would be necessary for the dwelling of
6. origin. origin.
the Misrites and their neighbours, on account Boaz to have been in Judah, not in a district which
of their long-continued oppression of Israel, apparently in post-exilic times was not in Jewish occupation. The
persisted till close on the Greek period. The date of latest editor did no doubt arrange the geographical
the traditional elements, out of which, with imaginative statements accordingly ; but the author himself, as we
freedom, the present story of Ruth may have been have seen, placed Boaz in the Jerahmeelite Negeb.
partly composed, is quite another point. As in the Surely no one who thoroughly appreciates the charm
case of Job (see J OB [BOOK], J 4)and Jonah (see J ONAH of this book will be satisfied with the prevalent theory
[BOOK], 5 4 J ) some of these elements may have been of its object. There is no ' tendency ' about the book ;
derived from mythology or folk-lore (cp Wi. AOF it represents in no degree any party programme. And
366 J ) . As Stucken points out,l a Ruth corresponds even if the writer started with the object of illustrating
exactly to Tamar; she obtains Boaz by taking him the life of David, he forgot this when he began to
unawares (Ruth 3), as Tamar obtains Judah (Gen. 38). write, and only thought of it again as he was about to
A dim consciousness of this connection shows itself in lay down the pen. Justly does Robertson Smith re-
the fact that the pedigree of Boaz is traced to Perez.' mark, ' the marriage acquires an additional interest
The original story of Ruth probably gave her two sons when we know that Ruth was David's great-grand-
(corresponding to the two sons of Tamar), only one mother, but the main interest is independent of that,
of whom is recorded (simply out of interest in David) and lies in the happy issue of Ruth and Naomi from
by the narrator. their troubles through the loyal performance of the
The ' altogether peculiar ' character of Ruth among kinsman's part by Boaz. Doubtless the writer meant
the historical and quasi-historical narratives has been his story to be an example to his own age, as well as
pointed out by Ewald, who is ' led to conclude that this an interesting sketch of the past ; but this is effected
story is only one taken from a larger series of similar simply by describing the exemplary conduct of Naomi,
pieces by the same author, and that through niere Ruth, Boaz, and even Boaz's harvesters. All these act
chance this is the only one preserved' (Hist. 1.55). as simple, kindly, God-fearing people ought to act in
More definitely, Budde suggests ( Z A TW12 4 3 8 [1892]) Israel.' [At the same time, the writer must have shsred
that the story of Ruth may originally have formed part the religious aspirations of his time, which, as we have
of the Midrash of the Book of the Kings ' referred to seen, was probably the post-exilic age-ie., perhaps
in z Ch. 2 4 2 7 . In so far as this theory is based on the that quieter period which followed after the first century
language of the genealogy in 4 18-22 (in connection with of the Greek rule. Now, there is good evidence for the
Wellhausen's view that I Ch. 2 1 0 - 1 7 is a later insertion), view that one of these aspirations was for a cessation of
we must agree with Konig (EinL 289, note) that it is the bitter feeling between Israel and Jerahmeel. As
unproven. At the same time, Ewald's impression that yet the sad exclusion of Jerahmeelites and Misrites
the narrative of Ruth did not always stand alone seems from the religious assembly had not been enacted,l or,
natural. if enacted, it was ignored by the noblest Jews, who held
That one of the objects of Ruth was to explain the that the N. Arabian peoples were not incapable of
traditional descent of David from a Misrite woman, has repentance, and that it was no disgrace to David that
., Objecte been mentioned already. It was true, said his pedigree contained the name of a Misrite woman.
of Ruth. the writer, that his grandmother was a A thorough study of certain psalms and prophecies
MiTite ; but what a noble woman she was ! will, it is believed, strongly confirm this view, and show
how obedient to those fundamental laws of morality that the best of the Jews looked forward to a true
which the true God values more than sacrifice! And conversion of the Misrites to the religion of the God of
so a second object naturally unveils itself-viz., to Israel-the Lord of the whole earth.' Jerusalem
prepare the readers of the book to arrive at a more would yet be thronged by the children of Israel's bitter
favourable opinion of the moral capacity of the Misrites foes, seeking first for instruction and then for admission
than, owing to the cruel oppression of Israel by the into the religious community, and it is possible to see a
Misrites, previous generations had been able to form. glance at this hope in the touching words of Boaz, ' and
Many critics (e.g.,besides Winckler and most com- how thou hast left thy father and thy mother, and the
mentators, Umbreit, St. KY.,1834,pp. 3088 ; Geiger, land of thy nativity, and art come unto a people which
Uuschr. 49$ ; and especially Kue. ReL of 1% 2 2 4 2 J , thou knewest not heretofore' (Ruth211). And so,
and Ond.(2)1523 527) hold that the narrator was one of ultimately, the book becomes (like Jonah) a noble
those who protested against the rigour of Ezra in the record of the catholic tendency of the early Judaism.]
matter of mixed marriages. It is not clear, however, Among other commentaries reference may be made to J. B.
that any such protest would have been detected by a -
Carpzov, CoZlepkm rabbinic0 biblicunt in libellurn Ruth,
Leipsic, 1703. [Among recent commentators
Jewish reader of the book. The great point with the Literature. the works of Bertheau (ed. 2, 1833)~Berthole;
narrator is not the marriage of Mahlon but the next-of- (1898), Nowack (qa)may be specially men-
kin marriage of Boaz. It cannot be shown that, when tioned. See also Wi. AOF 365-78, and references in the course
married to Mahlon, Ruth became in the full sense a of this article.]
worshipper of YahwB. It is much more probable that
(5s I , 2. partly 4 and 7 )w. K. s.
the statement of Mahlon's marriage to a Misrite woman
($5 3, 5 , 6, mostly 4 and 7) T. K. c.
is simply a proof that the writer was a good historical RYE (llpp?). See R IE , FITCHES.
scene painter. Like the Chronicler, he knows that in
early times there was a great mixture of clans, and that 1 In Dt. 23 3-6[4.7]-aZto~cther a later insertipn-the ethnics
should probably be 'Jerahmeelite' and ' Migite. The passagf
1 Astralrnytkm, IIO, note. We may add that we take conflicts with v. 7 [E], where the ethnics should be ' Arammite
'Tamar' and 'Ruth' to be ultimately corruptions of ' Jerah- (=Jerahmeelite) and ' Misrite.' Dillmann's criticism here is
me'elith' (cp JUDAH, $ 2). Neither Stucken nor Winckler very incomplete. The passage must be later than the fall of
criticises the Hebrew names. Jerusalem.