(3) The capitulation in certain MSS of the Vulgate.
(4) The fact that ALP, etc. (see above), place tlie doxology at the end of 14. Of these, number (2) is inconclusive as a mere argument from silence. The others require explanation. A further argu- ment from the repeated benediction 1G»-" (TU) is shown hy Sanday-Headlani to rest on no solid foundation. How, then, are we to explain the facts? Thesupposition that chs. 15. 16 are spurious (Baur) cannot stand in face of the close connexion between chs. 14 and 15'-", a governing fact in the whole question. The chapters are omitted by no
vou IV.— 20
known MS, nor does the theory of their partial spuriousness (Lucht), i.e. of interpolations, find any support in the textual material. The supposi- tion that our chapters are a combination of the endings of recensions of the Epistle addressed to several different Churches, 1-14 (or l-ll) being the part common to all recensions (Renan), otl'ends against the governing fact mentioned above, and depends, moreover, upon an erroneous view (see above) of 16*- ". A plau-sible, but in reality equally untenable, modification of this view is that 16'""', or 16^""', or '""', originally formed part of a letter addressed to Ephesus, and became after- wards incorporatad in our Epistle (first suggested in 1767 by Ke^^ermann, substantially adopted by Ewald, Mangold, Reu.ss, Lucht, Holsten, Lipsius, Weiss, Weizsiicker, Farrar, etc.). Aquila and Priscilla, it is true, were last heard of in Ephesus (1 Co 16i»), and are there later (2 Ti 4") ; Epienetus is the 'first-fruits of Asia' (KV); and St. Paul must have had many friends in Ephesus, while he had never seen Koine. But the hypothesis dees not account for the facts ; on the contrary, it leaves ch. 15 wholly untouched. Again, considering the constant going and coming between Home and the provinces, it would be very surprising that St. Paul should not have many acquaintances in Home. Moreover, there is good inscriptional and other evidence connecting many of the names with Rome, and indeed with Roman Christians. (See Sanday- Heaiilam, notes on ch. 16). This is specially true of the householdsof AniSTOBULUS and Narci.SSUS, of Amim.iatus and of Nereus (see the articles on these names). On the whole, with all deference to the distinguished scholars who have represented it, our conclusion must be that the case for trans- ferrinj; this section, without any textual ground, from its actual connexion to a lost Epistle to Ephesus, is not made out.
To return, then, to the general question of chs. 15. 16, and to the heads of evidence (1), (3), and (4), the questions to be considered are, Jirstlij, What were Marcion's grounds for omitting the chapters ? and, secondly, Does the fact that he did so sulKcienlly explain (3) and (4)? If Marcion omitted the chapters on grounds of tradition, the second question need not be asked, for a tradition older than Marcion would doubtless leave other traces ; but if his oini.ssion was purely arbitrary, the question of his probable inllueiice becomes important. That Marcion's text had considerable circulation and some inlluence in the West may be allowed. But this is hardly adequate as a hypothesis by itself to account for the facts ; it does not inarch without a stick. The extra support required is furnished by the assumption that the text was adapted for Church use in certain localities by omitting the personal and less edify- ing conclusion. The existence of a known text— Marcion's — which lacked ch.s. 15. 16, sugijrsted the adoption of 14^ as the close of the shortened Epistle, and accordingly the doxology, which it was desired to retain, was added at that point. The answer to our second question, then, may be put thus : Given a demand for an edition of our Epistle with the closing section, exceptin",' the dox- ology, omitted, the influence of Marcion's text was likely to suggest the exact point where the omission should begin. In other words, the heads of evidence (3) and (4) — we may perhaps add (2) — may be exi)lained by (1). Thajir.it question, then, becomes one of probability. ^\ as Marcion likely to omit the chapters on doctrinal grounds, or was he, on the other hand, unlikely to excise any matter with- out documentary authority? On this question the reader is as entitled to decide as the present WTiter.
The connexion between the question of ihs. 15. 16 and the omission of tv 'Pii/ijj in 1'" is very
306
ROJIE
ROME
obscure. Sanday-Headlani conjecture thatMareion is responsil)le for tlie latter omission also ; Imt there is no evidence tliat lie omitted tiiese words. But f,'iven tlie demand (see aliove) for an 'imiiersonar edition, the words may have been strucK out in some cojiies of such an edition either with or with- out the support of Marcion's text. That Marcion was Interested in the addresses of St. Paul's Epp. we know from the case of Epiiesians (which see, and of. Smith's DB^ p. 947).
Literature. — On the ancient commentaries, Origeo, Chry- so^^toni, Theodoret, John Damasc, (Ecunienius, Theophylact, Eiitheniius, Arabrosiaster, Pelagnus, llii^h of St. Victor, Abe- lard, and Aquinas, see the excellent characterizations in Sanday- Headlam. Au-^justine tlioui,dit prufoundly over the Epistle to the Rouians ; his anti-I'ela^nan writinj^a are in effect a commen- tary upon its most characteristic ideas. He bei^n a formal commentary, hut only reached the salutation (Retract, i. 26). Of more interest is the Expositio quainimlam qinvst. in Ep. ad Horn. (Mi^ne, Pat. Lat. xxxv. 2087), which is the result of his study of the Epistle as a presbyter (about a.d. 396) with some friends. We have here the transition from his earlier views of grace and free will, etc., to his more developed and characteristic conviction, fonned under the influence of his studies of St. Paul (see Reuter, August, Studien, p. 7ff.). The Biblical Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide (S. J., 11637) gathers up usefully much exegetical material from ancient and mediffl^al Latin writers, including' Aug-ustine. On the com- mentaries of Colet (ed. Lupton, 1873), Luther (Preface to Mel- anchthon's comm. 1523), Calvin (1539, 'by far the best of the commentators of the Reformation'), Beza (1594), Estius(1614- 6), Hammond (1653), Locke (1705-7), Beng-el (1742), Wetstein (1751-2), see Sanday-Headlam, who also g;ive a useful list of modern commentaries. Among the more important of these are those of Fritzsche (1830-43), Mever (indispensable; the later German cd. bv Weiss), de Wctte (1830 and foil.), Olshausen, Philippi (21850 and 41886), Jowett (21809, 31894, suggestive and inexact), Vaughan (^1880, scholarly and admirable in illustra- tion, less satisfactory on connexion of thought), Bisping, Maier (Roman Cathohc, as also) Klofutar (Laibach, 1880, terse and sensible), Godet (1879, 21883, admirable in general exposition and in bibUcal theologv; among the best general commentaries), Ultramare (Geneva, 1881-2), J. A. Beet (,HSSb, able, and always worth consulting). Otto (Glauchau, 1880), Lipsius (in BandkommerUar, 1881, able and useful), Barmby (1890, in Pulpit Commentary), Moule (in Expositor's Bible, excellent pouular exegesis, and a distinct advance on that in his Camb. Bihlefor Schools), Liddon (1803, Explnnatory Analysis). Light- foot'a posthumous Notes on Epistles of ^t. Paul contain a precious fragment on Ro 1-7. The two volumes of Gore (1893-9) are popular, but based ui)on thoroughly scientillc criticism and exegesis. At the he.id of all English commen- taries, and pre-eminent among those in any language, are those of Giiford (1886, reprinted from the Speaker's Commentary, unrivalled for accuracy, both in scholarship and theology) and Sanday-Headlam (1895). The last named is one of the most complete and satisfactorv commentaries extant on any of the books of the Bible. The present article owes more to it than to any one work on this E-^istle. After it, the writer would wish to acknowledge special mdebtedness to Gifford, Godet, Meyer- Weiss, and Lipsius.