(2) The position of the final doxology. — It should be carefully noted that there is no break in thought between chs. 14 and 15 (our present chapter divisions are late and do not always corre- spond to breaks in the sense), and the chs. as they stand oiler a reasonably connected sequence of thought, except for the fact that there seem to be several distinct endings — 15'', np'-^-''^. But when we come to examine the textual phenomena the case is even more complicated. In some MSS and Fathers (Chrysostom, Theodoret, etc.), represent- ing the Antiochene text, the last tliree verses, which it will be convenient to refer to as ' the doxology,' are found at the close of ch. 14 ; Origen also knew of codices in which this was the case. A few authorities, including A, have it both there an<l at the end. FGg and a few other authorities omit the doxology altogether, as we know was the case with Marcion. The variation in the position of 'the Grace' (16"°), which is inserted in some MSS after 16-' and in TR by a natural conflation in both places, is additional evidence of the exist- ence of copies which did not end with the dox- ology.
It will be understood that the evidence for the doxology .after 14^ is also evidence for the exist- ence of a .short recension, since the doxology cannot have stood originally between 14-' and 15', making a complete break in the sense. Its position there can only imply that the Epistle ended, or was supposed to end, at that point.
(3) Omission of the address to Rome. — There is evidence that the text used by Origen and Ambrosi- aster omitted in "Pwii.-q ('in Rome') in 1'- '^ and read iv iyd-riD ('in love'), which is actually the reading of G.t It should be remarked that these authorities coincide with part of the evidence for the short recension, a point which may or may not be significant.
We have, then, these three textual phenomena — the existence of a short recension of the Epistle ; the displacement, or omission, of the doxology ; and the omission of the words ' in Rome ' — together with the doubt attaching to the original destina- tion of 16^', though it is not yet clear how far they are all connected. The primary problem is to ex- plain the short recension and the displacement of the doxology, which do undoubtedly stand in close reliition to one another. Any solution must account for the fact, to whicli attention has already been called, of the close connexion of thought between H'-" and 15'. How then did the Epistle come to be truncated at this point, and the doxology to be inserted there ? This consideration seems fatal to views such as those which regard chs. 15-16 as altogether unauthentic (Kaur), or as belonging to a diflerent recension of the Epistle made by St. Paul himself (Renan, Lightfoot, Lake). It is very dillicult to believe that it ever ended with 14^, with or without the doxology.
The most popular exjilanation, therefore, is that adopted tentatively by Sanday-Headlam, following
• Lake, Earlier Epistles, p. 341 ; Sanday-Headlam, p. xcviii.
t For details see Lake, op. cit., p. 346, who supplements Sanday-Headlam, ad Inc., by calling attention to the fact, dis- covered only in 18S»7, that the scholi.ost of cod. 47 was really using Origen. Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, p. 2S7) points out that Ruflnus' Latin text of Origen also implies the omission.
410 KOMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
GilFord. They suppose the short recension, with the consequent confusion of text, to be due to Marcion. Thej' point out truly enou^jh tliat the opening verses of ch. 15 contradict his teaching entirely, and that he could not possibly have admitted them. He therefore cut them out, as Origen apparently says, and it is supposed that this influenced later orthodox practice. ' Wlien in adapting tlie text for the purpo.ses of church use it was thoiight advisable to omit the last portions as too personal and not sufficiently edifying, it was natural to make the division at a place where in a current edition the break had already been made.' * The doxology was afterwards replaced at tlie end of ch. 14, while Marcion is also supposed to be respon- sible for the omission of the words ' in Rome,' wliich he struck out as an unimportant local allusion.
The theory has, however, been criticized by l-ake.t It implies that Marcion had a greater influence than is altogether probable on the forma- tion of the canon of the Pauline Epistles and on the text of the NT ; von Soden's estimate of the extent of this influence has not been generally accepted. Further, TertuUian seems to have used the short recension, and his corpus was independent of Marcion's ; this fact and the widespread nature of the evidence for the omission of the last two chs. suggest that catholic collections of the Epistles, containing only the short recension, existed before Marcion. The charge that he cut the chs. out may only mean that tliey did not in fact stand in the copies he used.
As to his supposed responsibility for the omission of the reference to Konie, Lake points out that it is clear from the recently discovered Mareionite prologues that he did in fact describe the Epistle as ' to the Romans ' in the usual way.