vii. Materials for pf,rsonal History op St. Paul. — The Epistle is far less rich than those to the Corinthians and Galatians in details as to St. Paul's personal history. His long-standing desire to see Rome is mentioned in ch. 1 and in 15^; the puzzling reference to his having preached liixpi Tov 'IWvpiKoO in 15'" (see art. 2 Cokinthians, vol. i. p. 495), if the words do not compel us to suppose that he had actually entered Illyricum, would be satisfied by his visit to Beroea, the last important place in Macedonia (Ac 17'°). His further intention to visit Spain (IS-**) is a fact of great interest, as also is his apprehension as to hig coming visit to Jerusalem with the Xo7lo (w. '""''). The names in ch. 16 contain those of many friends of the apostle otherwise unknown to us, including his kinsmen Andronicus and Junias, Jason and Sosipatcr. In Tertius we have the only certain name of an amanuensis employed by the apostle. His reference to miracles worked by himself (15") should not be overlooked (cf. 2 Co 12"^).
Of deeper interest, though ojien to more doubt,
is the personal bearing of the i)assage '
Itie impossible to regard the pa.ssage as a mere iiera(rxn- tia.naij.6i, describin" the phenomena in the first per.son merely for the sake of vividness. The iyiii is too emphatic, too repeated, the feeling too deep, for a purely impersonal statement. On the other hand, the passage is universal in its reference, and supplies the argument with an indispensable piece of analysis. We may regard it as St. Paul's account, based upon reflexion as well as on experi- ence, of the utmost that law can do for human nature. And if so, we may use it in order to understand how St. Paul may well have come to realize, even before his conversion, that if the preaching of the apostles (cf. 1 Co 15"- ') was true, t/ Christ had died ' not in vain ' (Gal 2'-'), then
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 305
righteousness did not come by the law. It enables US to realize something of the ' kicking against the goads,' wliich, as we know, had preceded the scene on the road to Damascus.
viii. Transmission of the Text. Integrity. — Tlie text of our Epistle comes to us through much the same lines of transmission as that of 1 Cor. (which see). It is contained in the Peshitta, Old Lat., Copt., and other oldest versions of the NT, as well as in the principal Gr. MSS. Of the latter it is complete in nAHLS (the last uncoUated). C lacks •2^-3=', 9«-10'», ll^-lS'". Di»°i lacks l""', jn-au j^rp supplied by a somewhat later hand (also l»4i7 jn ti,g Lat.) ; £>""' (copy of D) has these pas- sages, but lacks S^'-i^, 11 ">•=». F'*'", a copy of G, is lacking in I'-S". G"""" lacks 1' d(pu>pia n.-Tl<rrtat 1», also 2'«-=». K contains the Epistle only to 10". P lacks 2">-3», 8»-9", 11*'-12>. 3 contains only I3*-15*. (On the cursives, and on tlie authorities for the Old Lat., what was said on 1 Cor. may be repeated, with a further reference to Sanday- Headlam, p. l.xv).
Of textual phenomena we must notice the omis- sion in G g, supported by a note in the Bodleian cursive 47, of the words iv 'PufiTj, V- ". The omission tempts a comparison with the omission, by im- portant authorities, of the analogous words in the address of EphesiaNS. But in tliis case there can be no question that the words iy 'Pu/iri are original. The omission may, however, be due, as may also be the case with Ephesians, to the early circulation of our Epistle among other Churches with the omisijion of the delinite references to Ilome. This might be connected with the omission, in some early authorities, of ch.s. 15. 16 (see below). But this connexion would be much more certain if the authorities for the omission of dv 'Pii/ij) and of chs. 15. 16 were identical. This is not the case.
A more difficult question is that of the place of the doxology (16"""). L and many cursives, with some other ancient authorities, place it at the end of ch. 14 ; AP and a few authorities repeat it at tlie end of 16 ; FG g Marcion omit it wholly, but G leaves a blank S|)aee at the end of ch. 14. (On D see Sanday-Headlam, p. Ixxxix). But xHCDE, some cursives, and most Western authorities, place it aft«r 16 only. Tliis is probably the earliest positiim ; its omission by Marcion may be the source of all the variations, although, if there were good grounds for thinking that St. Paul himself issued two recensions of the Epistle, the resemblance of the language of the doxology to that of the cap- tivity group of Ejip. (on which, however, see Hort in Lighlf. BiU. Essays, p. 327) might warrant us in BBcriliiiig the doxology to his second recension. Bat here, again, the hypothesis in question is in- adequately founded. It should be noted that G g, which omit ir 'Pwfty, should, on this supposition, irut!rl the doxology, which they, on the contrary, omit.
A far more complex question is raised by the omission, in some indirect but ancient witnesses to the text, of chs. 15. 16. These witnesses consist of (1) Marcion, a.s quoted by Orig.!*' supported by the language of Tertull. ado. Marc. v. 14. (2) The ahseiice of quotations in Tert., Iren., Cyorian.