725 πάντα τὰ ἔθνη γνωρισθέντος, 27. µόνῳ σοφῷ * Θεῷ, διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, a Jude v. 25 ᾧ ] ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἁἀμήν. Πρὸς Ῥωμαίους ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Κορίνθου διὰ Φοίβης τῆς διακόνου τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς ἐκκλησίας.”
1» is wanting in B, in F-lat., Orig.-interp., Syr., and is bracketed by W. and Η. But whether this is to be explained as an intentional correction to simplify the construction, or a mere oversight (of which Weiss gives examples, Textkritik, S. 93), it can hardly be right. Neither can avrw, which is found in P, be original; it is too natural a correction. Hence edd. are practically unanimous in keeping ω. After τους arevas SSADP add των αιωνων, but W. and H., with BCL and cursives, omit it. Weiss prints the addition in his text, yet argues for its omission (Textkritik,
89). 2 προς Ρωµαιους only, in ABCD.
πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν: for els in this sense see iii, 22. It is very difficult to believe that such mosaic work is the original composition of Paul.
Ver. 27. µόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ: this descrip- tion of God suits all that has just been said about His great purpose in human history, and the hiding and revealing of it in due time. The true text in 1 Tim. i. 17 has no cod. The absence of the article here indicates that it is in virtue of having this character that God is able to stablish the Romans according to Paul’s Gospel. ᾧ 4 δόξα: it is impos- sible to be sure of the reading here. If ᾧ be omitted, there is no grammatical difficulty whatever: glory is ascribed to God through Jesus Christ, through Whom the eternal purpose of the world’s re- demption has in God’s wisdom been wrought out. But its omission is almost certainly a correction made for simplifi-
cation’s sake. If it be retained, to whom does it refer? (1) Some say, to Jesus Christ; and this is grammatically the obvious way to take it. But it seems inconsistent with the fact that in τῷ δὲ δυναµένῳ and µόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ Paul wishes unequivocally to ascribe the glory to God. And though it saves the grammar of the last clause, it sacrifices that of the whole sentence. Hence (2) it seems necessary to refer it to God, and we may suppose, with Sanday and Headlam, that the structure of the sentence being lost amid the heavily-loaded clauses of the doxology, the writer concludes with a well-known formula of praise, ᾧ 4 δόξα κ.τ.λ. (Gal. i. 15, 2 Tim. iv. 18, Heb. xiii. 21). This might be indicated by putting a dash after ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, The thread is lost, and the writer appends his solemn conclusion as best he can.
ny nel HM om
pa
mf 1 y ον lig : i
η η a οι ψι, ] ea verre Ιλ ή ς Rl ele «lt ie “yet
ών
Μι 7 Bt i A arty iat ἴ
py Te
ary, ie
i. ' er Νε 7 6 LN ν
os
i: re em 1 iad ih δη v η ΜΑΚ Ν
σα
PHECRIRST “EPISTLE ΟΕ PAUL TO THE