p. 577), there is evidence that the doxology stood in different positions (at xiv. 23 for one) before Origen’s time, and independently of Mar- cion’s mutilated copies. Hence some one must have felt that xiv. 23 was not an impossible place to stop at, and that for other than Marcion’s reasons ; and if some one, why not Paul himself? But in the absence of any direct evidence as to how the textual phe- nomena originated, it is very improbable that any certainty on the subject will ever be attained.
2. Questions raised by the internal character of chap. xv.
The Tubingen school, or at least some of its more vigorous adher- ents, followed Baur in finding chap. xv. too moderate in tone for Paul. Baur regarded the last two chapters as the work of some one “ writ- ing in the spirit of the Acts of the Apostles, seeking to soothe the Judaists and to promote the cause of unity, and therefore tempering the keen anti-Judaism of Paul with a milder and more conciliatory conclusion to the epistle”. An argument like this rests on a general impression of what it was possible for Paul to write, and can only be met by another general impression of a different sort. It is suffi- cient to say that later scholars are practically at one in finding that there is nothing in the chapter inconsistent with Pauline authorship. The Paul by whom Baur measured all things in the epistles is really not the Paul of history, but of a more or less arbitrary theory ; and his picture has to be corrected by taking into account precisely such revelations of his true attitude to the questions of his time as are found in this chapter. Lipsius, who thinks the fifteenth chapter asa whole genuine, nevertheless holds that it has been interpolated. He omits the latter part of verse 19- --ὥστε pe ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ κύκλω µέχρι τοῦ Ιλλυρικοῦ πεπληρωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Xpiotod—as inconsistent with Gal. i. 18-24, and unsupported by any accredited historical evidence. But he admits that it is supported by Acts ix. 28 f.; and if we compare i. 8, Col. 1. 23, and remember that what we have before us is not sworn evidence but a broad rhetorical description of the Apostle’s missionary labours, we shall probably think the expression characteristically Pauline rather than the reverse. In verse 20 Lipsius omits οὐχ ὅπου ὠνομάσθη Χριστός, ἵνα μὴ ew ἀλλότριον θεµέλιον οἰκοδομῶ, ἀλλά. The words, he argues, are suggested by 2 Cor. x. 15: but the purpose expressed in them, of not preaching the Gospel in Rome, because Rome is a mission-field belonging to others (who have introduced Christianity there already), is incompatible with i. 5, 13-15, xii. 3, xv. 15. It is enough to answer that the purpose of not preaching the Gospel at Rome i, not expressed here at all. Paul tells the principle on which he has always acted—the principle