Romans 14:23

Romans 14:23 evsti,n) {A}

A full discussion of the problems of the termination of the Epistle to the Romans involves questions concerning the authenticity and integrity of the last chapter (or of the last two chapters), including the possibility that Paul may have made two copies of the Epistle, one with and one without chap. Romans 16:1 (chaps. Romans 1:1 being sent to Rome and chaps. Romans 1:1 to Ephesus). ⁹

The doxology (“Now to him who is able to strengthen you…be glory for evermore through Jesus Christ!”) varies in location; traditionally it has been printed at the close of chap. Romans 16:1 (as verses Romans 16:25-27), but in some witnesses it occurs at the close of chap. Romans 14:1, and in another witness (î⁴⁶) at the close of chap. Romans 15:1. Moreover, several witnesses have it at the close of both chap. Romans 14:1 and chap. Romans 16:1, and in others it does not occur at all. (See the comment at 16.25-27.)

It is further to be observed that the benediction (“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you [all]”) is found sometimes after Romans 16:20, sometimes after Romans 16:23, and sometimes in both places. In the last case it is found under three conditions: (1) before the doxology, (2) without it, (3) after it. In its discussion of these problems, the Committee was concerned chiefly with the textual phenomena, and made no attempt to formulate a comprehensive literary theory bearing on questions of the authenticity, integrity, and destination(s) of the epistle. (On the positions of the benediction see the comment on 16.20.)

The textual evidence ¹⁰ for six locations ¹¹ of the doxology is as follows:

By the way of explanation of the citation of the evidence for the sequence designated (d), it should be said that codex G, a Greek manuscript with a Latin interlinear version, leaves a blank space of six lines between Romans 14:23 and Romans 15:1, i.e. large enough to accommodate the doxology. This suggests that the scribe of G had reason to think that after Romans 14:23 was the place where the doxology should occur, but that it was lacking in the manuscript from which he was copying. Codex F, the Greek text of which seems to have been copied from the same exemplar as G was copied, joins Romans 15:1 immediately to Romans 14:23, and only in its Latin text (written in a column by itself) presents the doxology after Romans 16:24, while the Greek text of F lacks the doxology. Apparently the doxology was lacking also in the exemplar from which codex D was copied, for D is written colometrically (in sense lines) throughout Romans up to Romans 16:24 and the doxology is written stichometrically (in lines straight across the page). This difference in format has been taken to imply that the section was lacking in a recent ancestor of codex D. ¹² The capitula that are referred to in the citation of evidence for the sequence designated (f) are headings, or brief summaries of sections, that are prefixed to the epistle in many Vulgate manuscripts. The last but one heading (no. 50) begins at the close of Romans 14:14 (see Wordsworth and White, ii, p. 60) and may cover the rest of chap. Romans 14:1; then the last heading (no. 51) passes at once to the doxology. Since these headings abound in language derived from the Old Latin versions, it appears that the system was drawn up originally for a pre-Vulgate form of the epistle which lacked chaps. Romans 15:1 and Romans 16:1, but in which the doxology was appended to the close of chap. Romans 14:1. This sequence of text is preserved in three Vulgate manuscripts (in Gregory’s notation 1648 and 1792, both in Munich, and 2089, in the Monza Chapter Library). ¹³

In evaluating the complicated evidence, the Committee was prepared to allow (1) for the probability that Marcion, or his followers, circulated a shortened form of the epistle, lacking chapters Romans 15:1 and Romans 16:1, and (2) for the possibility that Paul himself had dispatched a longer and a shorter form of the epistle (one form with, and one without, chapter Romans 16:1). Furthermore, it was acknowledged that, to some extent, the multiplicity of locations at which the doxology appears in the several witnesses, as well as the occurrence in it of several expressions that have been regarded as non-Pauline, raises suspicions that the doxology may be non-Pauline. At the same time, however, on the basis of good and diversified evidence supporting sequence (a), it was decided to include the doxology at its traditional place at the close of the epistle, but enclosed within square brackets to indicate a degree of uncertainty that it belongs there. Some of the other sequences may have arisen from the influence of the Marcionite text upon the dominant form(s) of the text of the epistle in orthodox circles. Whether sequence (e) is merely one of several idiosyncrasies of the scribe of î⁴⁶, or somehow reflects a stage during which Romans circulated without chapter Romans 16:1, is difficult to decide. Sequence (f) appears to be peculiar to the transmission of the epistle in Latin.

⁹ On the textual history of the Epistle, see Harry Gamble, Jr., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids, 1977); Kurt Aland, Neutestamentliche Entwürfe (Munich, 1979), pp. 284—301 (who cites manuscript evidence of fifteen different sequences of Romans); and Peter Lampe, Novum Testamentum, XXVII (1985), pp. 273—277.

¹⁰ It should be pointed out that, since î⁶¹ is extremely fragmentary in Romans (preserving only Romans 16:23, Romans 16:24-27), it could be cited in support of sequence (b) as well as (a).

¹¹ For two other sequences of the material in Romans (though without the citation of specific manuscript evidence), see K. Aland, Studien zur Überlieferung des Neuen Testaments und seines Textes (Berlin, 1967), p. 47.

¹² So Corssen, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, X (1909), pp. 5 f.; but Zahn explains the difference in style of writing (which also occurs occasionally elsewhere in cod. D) as arising from the scribe’s attempt to save space (Introduction to the New Testament, I, pp. 403 f.).

¹³ For a description of these three manuscripts, see R. Schumacher, Die beiden letzten Kapitel des Römerbriefs (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen XIV, 4; Münster i. W., 1929), pp. 15 ff.