II. Integritij. — This has not been so unanimously admitted as the genuineness. With the exception of Marcion's authorities, indeed, who probably tampered with the manuscripts of the epistles as he did with those of the gospels, and who considered the last two chapters of this epistle spurious, all the manuscripts and versions contain the epistle as we have it: it is in modern times that doubts have been thrown upon the authenticity of the concluding portion. By Heumann the epistle was considered to have originally ended with eh. xi; ch. xii-xv being a distinct production, though likewise addressed to the Romans, and ch. xvi a sort of postscript to the two. Semler (17G2) confined his (lotd)ts to ch. XV and xvi, the former of which he re- garded as a private encyclical for the use of the breth- ren whom tlie bearers of the larger epistle sliould meet on tlieir way to Rome, the latter as a catalogue of per- .sons to be saluted on the same journey. Schulz (1829) supposed that ch. xvi was addressed to the Ephesians from Rome, and Schott that it is made up of fragments from a short epistle written by Paul wlien at Corinth to an Asiatic (^liurch. Baur has more recently (183()) followed on the same side; but. as usual, on merelv in- ternal grounds, and in favor of his iieculiar theory of the relation of the parties of Paul and Peter in the apostolic age. 'I'hese various hypotheses have long passed into oblivion; and by all recent critics of note
the last two chapters have been restored to their place as an integral part of the epistle.
With greater semblance of reason has the genuine- ness of the doxology at the end of the epistle been questioned. Schmidt and Reiche consider it not to be genuine. In this doxology the anacolouthical and un- connected style causes some surprise, and the whole has been deemed to be out of its place (vers. 26 and 27). The arguments against its genuineness on the ground of style, advanced by Reiche, are met and refuted by Eritzsche (Rom. vol. i, p. xxxv). Such defects of style may easily be explained from the circumstance that the apostle hastened to the conclusion, but would be quite inexplicable in additions of a copyist who had time for calm consideration. The same words occur in difterent passages of the epistle, and it must be granted that such a fluctuation sometimes indicates an interpi)lation. In the Codex I, in most of the Codices Minusculi, as well as in Chrysostom, the words occur at the conclusion of ch. xiv. In the codices B, C, D, E, and in the Syrian translation, this doxology occurs at the conclusion of ch. xvi. lu Codex A it occurs in both places; while in Codex D** the words are wanting entirely, and they seem not to fit into either of the two places. If the doxology be put at the conclusion of ch. xiv, Paul seems to promise to those Christians weak in faith, of whom he had spoken, a confirmation of their belief. But it seems unfit in this connection to call the Gos- pel an eternal mystery, and the doxology seems here to interrupt the connection between ch. xiv and xv; and at the conclusion of ch. xvi it seems to be super- fluous, since the blessing had been pronounced already in ver. 24. We, however, say that this latter circum- stance need not have prevented the apostle from allow- ing his animated feelings to burst forth in a doxology, especially at the conclusion of an epistle which treated amply on the mystery of redemption. We find an analogous instance in Eph. xxiii, 27, where a doxology occurs after the mystery of salvation had been mention- ed. We are therefore of opinion that the doxology is rightly placed at the conclusion of ch. xvi, and that it was in some codices erroneously transposed to the con- clusion of ch. xiv, because the copyist considered the blessing in xvi, 24 to be the real conclusion of the epis- tle. In confirmation of this remark, we observe that the same codices in which the doxology occurs in ch. xvi either omit the blessing altogether or place it after the doxology. (See § iv, 7 below.)
III. Time and Place of Writing. — The date of this epistle is fixed with more absolute certainty and with- in narrower limits than that of anj' other of Paul's epis- tles. The following considerations determine the time of writing. First. Certain names in the salutations point to Corinth as the place from which the letter was sent. (1.) Phoebe, a deaconess of Cenchrere, one of the port towns of Corinth, is commended to the Romans (xvi, 1, 2). (2.) Gaius, in whose house Paul was lodged at the time (ver. 23), is probably the person mentioned as one of the chief members of the Corinthian Church in 1 Cor. i, 14, though the name was very common. (3.) Erastus, here designated " the treasurer of the city" (oiKovof-ioQ, ver. 23, A. V. "chamberlain"), is elsewhere mentioned in coimection with Corinth (2 Tim. iv, 20; see also Acts xix, 22). Secondly. Having thus deter- mined the place of writing to be Corinth, we have no liesitation in fixing upon the visit recorded in Acts xx, 3, during the winter and spring following the apostle's long residence at Ephesus, as the occasion on which the epistle was written. For Paul, when he wrote tlie let- ter, was on the point of carrying the contributions of Macedonia and Achaia to Jerusalem (xv, 25-27), and a comparison with Acts xx, 22; xxiv, 17; and also 1 Cor. xvi, 4; 2 Cor. viii, 1, 2; ix, 1 s()., shows that he was so engaged at this period of his life. (See Paley, llor(e Paulince, ch. ii, § 1.) Moreover, in this epistle he de- clares his intention of visiting the Romans after he has been at Jerusalem (xv, 23-25), and that such was his