* AV ' flrstfruits of Achaia ' rests on poor MSS evidence, and is contradicted bv 1 Co le's, where Stephanas is so described.
f See the discussions in Lightfoot, Philippianr>, London, 187S (detached note on 'Cusar's Household,' p. 171 ff.), Sanday- Headlam, ICC, 'Bomans'6, pp. xcivfl., 418ff., with criticisms in K. Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul. London, 1911, p. 330 ft.
J ' To describe the personal nanies in Rom. xvi. as specifically Roman on the strength of inscriptions found in the city of Rome is about as safe as to describe Wilhetm, Friedrich, Luise as speciflcallv Berlin names because they are found on Berlin tombstones. The names referred to are found swarming in inscriptions, papyri, and ostraca all over the Mediterranean world' (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, Eng. tr., London. 1911, p. 278, n. 1). Similarly O. Milligan, The New Testament Documents, do., 1913. p. 183. n. 1.
ROMAIv'S, EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 409
executed by Agrippina, but again the names are common, and, as I.iike points out, we sliould ex- pect o! ^apKiaaLavoL instead of oi NapWcrffou, words ending in -ani being usually transliterated. The most that can be saiil is that while these expres- sions suit Koine, they do not positively demand it.
Our conclusion may be that, though it is not impossible that this section may be an integral part of the Epistle, it is more probable that it was addressed to a ihurch St. Paul had visited, and that the indications point to Ephesus. No doubt this conclusion would be more readily accepted if it were possible to give a reasonable explanation of the way in which the chapter came toTje attached to this particular Epistle ; a suggestion will be made when we come to deal with the next problem. Meanwhile it need only he added that those who regard the verses as mis]ilaced often see in them a letter,* or part of a letter, commending Phuibe (see v.') to Ephesus (Kenan, etc.). Giflbrdt and others suggest that it may have been written to Kome after St. Paul's first imprisonment there ; this would explain the large circle of acquaintances (but not the references to Aquila and Prisca, or Epienetus), and It might easily become attached to the earlier letter. It should be clearly under- stood that very few critics question the Pauline authorship of the chapter ; the doubt is whether it is in its right place.
(4) The nhurt recension. — This problem is not a little complicated, and its study requires some knowledge of the princi])les of NT criticism. It will be best to state the facts before proceeding to discuss the solutions which have been otlered.
(1) Evidence that a recension of the Epistle ex- isted lohich omitted chs. 15, 16. — It should be understood that no extant MS omits these chs. ; the evidence is indirect, (a) In the breves or chapter-headings J of the Codex Amiatinus of the Vulgate (a .sj'stem found in many other MSS) the 50th ' chapter ' clearly describes Ko H'""*^, and the 51st, and last, the doxology (16-°"-'), the remainder of 15 and 16 being omitted. In the same way the breves of Codex Fuldensis point to a similar text, without the doxology, while the concordance, or harmony, of the Pauline Epistles found in the Codex Slorbaeensis unmistakably implies the use of the Amiatine breves based on the short recension.
(/3) Neither Cyijrian, TertuUian, nor Irenneus quotes from the last two chs. ; § ' the argument from silence,' often so dangerous, is here signifi- cant, (i.) We should expect Cyprian in his 2'cs^j- monia to use Ko 16" under the headings which refer to the duty of avoiding heretics ; (ii.) Tevtul- lian (iidv. Marc. v. 14) quotes 14'° as occurring in clausula, i.e. in the closin<; section, of the Epistle, while he does not use against Marcion any of the obvious passages from 15-16, or accuse him of having cut them out of the Epistle.
(7) Origen does in fact say that Marcion 'removed' (abstulit) the final doxology and 'cut away' (dissecuit)\\ the last two chapters. This agrees with the evidence from TertuUian just quoted, though, as we have said, he does not
• According to Deiasmann (tight from the Ancient East. p. 226), ' there is no lack of analofries for a letter of recommenda- tion plunj^ing at once in medias res and bejiinning witii '* I commend."' He suggests tliat the short letter to Epliesus followed that to Romans in the letter-book (a book containing copies of letters sent or received) of Tertius, St. Paul's amanu- ensis.
t For this and other theories see Jloffatt, LNT, p. 138.
Jit must be remembered that the 'chapters' or sections referred to are not our present chapters.
§ According to MofTatt (p. 140), Clement of Alexandria and Origen are the only Ante-Nicene Fathers who do so.
II On the whole, it is not probable that this means merely 'separated off' or 'cut about.' Hort tries to explain away Origen'B evidence, but he has not been generally followed ; see Sanday-Headlam, p. xc ; Lightfoot, Biblical K$says, London, 1893, p. 287 ff. (including a paper by Hort).
accuse Marcion of tamjiering with the text ; their copies apparently agreed.
(5) In the group of MSS DEFG, which seem to come from a common ancestor, it is argued thai the text of the last two ch.s. is so dill'crent from that of the rest of the Epistle that somewhere in the line of transmission there must have come a MS containing only 1-14, which was supplemented from some other source for chs. 15-16. It is probable that this archetype also omitted the doxology.*