[1] Comp. Lucht, üb. d. beiden letzt. Kap. d. Römerbriefs, eine krit. Unters., Berlin 1871.
Various writers formerly, from the days of Semler,[2] disputed, not that Paul was the author of chap. 15 and 16 (as to the doxology, Rom_16:25-27, see, however, the critical notes on chap. 16), but that chap. 15 and 16 along with chap. 1–14 compose one epistle. Semler himself thought that Paul had given to the bearers of the letter—of which Phoebe was not the bearer—a list, which they might exhibit, of the teachers whom they were to visit on their journey by way of Cenchreae (where Phoebe dwelt) and Ephesus (where Aquila dwelt), and to whom they were to hand a copy of the letter. This list was in his view chap. 16, of which, however, Rom_15:25-27 had their original place after Rom_14:23 (which also Paulus, Griesbach, Flatt, Eichhorn assumed); and chap. 15 was an open letter to those same teachers, with whom the travellers were to confer respecting the contents.
Paulus (de originib. ep. ad Rom., Jen. 1801, and in his Kommentar z. Gal. u. Rom. 1831, Introd.) held chap. 15 to be an appended letter for those who were enlightened, and chap. 16 to have been a separate leaf for the bearer of the letters, with commendations to the overseers of the church and commissions to those whom they were particularly to greet from Paul. Griesbach (curae in hist. text. Gr. epp. P. p. 45, and in his Opusc. ed. Gabl. vol. ii. p. 63; comp. in opposition to him, Gabler himself in the Preface, p. xxiv.), whom in the main Flatt followed, saw in chap. 15 an appendix for the further discussion of the last subject, subjoined after the conclusion of the letter, while chap. 16 Consisted originally of various appended leaflets. A similar hypothesis was constructed by Eichhorn (Einleit. III. p. 232 ff.), who, however, regarded Rom_16:1-20 as not belonging to Rome at all, but as a letter of commendation for Phoebe, probably destined for Corinth, but taken along with her to Rome. Among all the grounds by which these varied assumptions have been supported, there are none which are valid, not even those which appear the least to rest on arbitrary assumption. For the statement that Marcion did not read chap. 15 and 16 amounts to this, that he, according to his fashion (see Hahn, d. Ev. Marcion’s, p. 50 ff.), excised them.[3] See, besides, Nitzsch in the Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol. 1860, I, p. 285 ff. Further, that Tertullian, c. Marc. v. 14, designates the passage Rom_14:10 as to be found in clausula of the epistle, is sufficiently explained from the fact that he is arguing against Marcion and hence refers to his copy. Comp. also Rönsch, d. N. T. Tertullian’s, p. 350. Again, the repeated formulae of conclusion before the final close of the letter (Rom_16:20; Rom_16:24; Rom_15:33 is merely the concluding wish of a section) are most readily and naturally understood from the repeated intention of the apostle actually to conclude; which was to be done first of all at Rom_16:16, but was frustrated through the intrusion of the further observation Rom_15:17 ff., and was deferred till Rom_15:20, after which, however, some further commissions of greeting were introduced (Rom_15:21-23), so that not until Rom_15:24 did the last wish of blessing—and now, for the complete conclusion of the whole, the ample doxology, Rom_15:25-27—finish the epistle. Most plausible are the two difficulties felt in reference to chap. 16; namely, (1) that Paul would probably not have had so many acquaintances in Rome, where he had not yet been at all, as he greets in chap, 16, especially seeing that, in the epistles subsequently written from Rome, he mentions none of them; and (2) that Aquila and Priscilla could hardly at that time have been in Rome (Rom_16:3), because they not long before were still dwelling in Ephesus (1Co_16:19), and were at a later period likewise in Ephesus (2Ti_4:19). This has been regarded as the most serious difficulty by Ammon (Praefat. p. 24)—who held chap. 16 to be a letter of commendation written by the apostle for Phoebe to Corinth after the imprisonment at Rome—and recently by Dav. Schulz (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 609 ff.), Schott (Isag. p. 249 ff.), Reuss (Gesch. d. h. Schrift. § 111), Ewald, Laurent, Lucht. Schulz regards chap. 16 as written from Rome to Ephesus; while Schott’s judgment is as follows: “Totum cap. 16 composition est fragmentis diversis[4] alius cujusdam epistolae brevioris (maximam partem amissae), quam Paulus Corinthi ad coetum quendam Christianum in Asia Minori versantem dederat, ita ut, qui schedulas singulas haec fragmenta exhibentes sensim sensimque deprehendisset, continua serie unum adjiceret alteri.” Reuss (so also Hausrath and Sabatier) sees in Rom_16:1-20 a letter with which Phoebe, who was travelling to Ephesus, was entrusted to the church there; while Ewald (comp. Mangold, also Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1866, p. 352) cuts out only Rom_15:3-20, but likewise regards this portion as having originally pertained to an epistle of the apostle to the Ephesians, which, according to Rom_15:7, was written from the Roman captivity; as, indeed, also Laurent (neutest. Stud. p. 31 ff.) extracts from Rom_15:1-24 a special commendatory letter for Phoebe, written by the apostle’s own hand to the Ephesians, assuming at the same time marginal remarks;[5] and Lucht assigns the commendation of Phoebe, and the greetings by name in Rom_15:3-6, to a letter to the Ephesians, but the greetings following in Rom_15:7 ff. to the editor of the Epistle to the Romans. But (1) just in the case of Rome it is readily conceivable that Paul had many acquaintances there, some of whom had come from Asia and Greece, and had settled in Rome, whether permanently or temporarily (several perhaps as missionaries); while others, like Aquila, had been banished as Jews under Claudius, and then had returned as Pauline Christians. (2) It is by no means necessary that Paul should have known the whole of those saluted by sight; how many might, though personally unknown, be saluted by him! (3) The fact that Paul at a later period, when he himself was a prisoner in Rome and wrote thence (in my judgment, the Epistle to the Philippians here alone comes into consideration; see Introd. to Eph. and Col.; the Pastoral Epistles, as non-apostolic, must be disregarded), does not again mention any one of those here saluted, may have arisen from the altered circumstances of the time; for between the composition of the epistle to Rome and the apostle’s sojourn in Rome there lies an interval of three years, during which the majority of those referred to might have obtained other places of destination. Besides, the salutation which Paul in the Epistle to the Philippians offers to others (Rom_4:22) is merely a quite summary one. (4) There exists no ground at all for denying that Aquila and Priscilla might, after the writing of our First Epistle to the Corinthians (1Co_16:19), have returned from Ephesus to Rome and have informed the apostle of their sojourn and activity there. (5) The greeting from all churches in Rom_15:16 is suitable enough for an epistle addressed to the church of the capital city of the empire; and the first-fruits of Asia, Rom_15:5, was everywhere a distinguishing predicate, so that it does not presuppose one living precisely in Ephesus.[6] (6) Were Rom_15:3-20 a portion cast adrift of an epistle to the Ephesians, or even a separate small letter to the Ephesians, it would not be easy to see how it should have come precisely to this place; it must have from the outset lost every trace of the tradition of its original destination to such an extent, that no occasion was found even afterwards, when an epistle to the Ephesians was already in ecclesiastical use, to subjoin it to that epistle. From all this there just as little remains any sufficient ground for severing, in opposition to all testimony, chap, 16., as there is for severing chap. 15, having otherwise so close an external and internal connection with chap. 14, from the Epistle to the Romans, and giving up the unity of the as handed down.
[2] Keggemann, praes. Semler de duplici ep. ad Rom. appendice, Hal. 1767, and afterwards in Semler’s Paraphrase, 1769. See in opposition to him, Koppe, Exc. II. p. 400 ff., ed. Ammon, Flatt, and Reiche.
[3] Origen on Rom_16:25 : “Caput hoc (viz. Rom_16:25-27) Marcion, a quo scripturae evangelicae et apostolicae interpolatae sunt, de hac epistola penitus abstulit; et non solum hoc, sed et ab eo loco, ubi scriptum est (Rom_14:23): omne autem, quod non ex fide est, peccatum est, usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit,”—which dissecuit cannot denote a mere mutilation (Reiche and others), but must be equivalent in sense to the preceding abstulit. The validity of this testimony cannot be overthrown by the silence of Epiphanius on this omission of Marcion, as a merely negative reason against it. Marcion’s stumbling-blocks, as regards chap. 15, were probably vv. 4 and 8 in particular. Altogether Marcion allowed himself to use great violences to this epistle, as he, for example, extruded Rom_10:5 to Rom_11:32; Tertullian, c. Marc. v. 14. Comp. generally, Hilgenfeld, in the Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol. 1855, iii. p. 426 ff.
[4] These being vv. 1–16, vv. 17–20, vv. 21–24, vv. 25–27.
[5] And that to such an extent, that of the 16th chapter nothing further is supposed to have been written by Paul for the Romans than vv. 21, 23, 24. See, in opposition, Ritschl, l.c., and Lucht, p. 22 f.—Weisse would have chap. 16 together with chap, 9–11 directed to Ephesus.
[6] Comp. besides, on the arguments numbered 1–5, van Hengel, II. p. 783 ff.
It was reserved at last for the criticism of Baur to contest the apostolic origin of chap. 15, 16 (in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, and Paulus, I. p. 394 ff., ed. 2; comp. also in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, 4, p. 493 ff.; Schwegler, nachapostol. Zeitalt. p. 123 ff.; Volkmar, in the theol. Jahrb. 1856, p. 321 ff., and Röm. Kirche, 1857, p. 3). Baur finds in the last two chapters a making of advances towards the Jewish Christians,[7] such as does not suit the tenor of the rest of the epistle. In this view he objects particularly to Rom_15:3; Rom_15:8; Rom_15:14 in chap. 15; Rom_15:9-12 is a mere accumulation of Bible passages to pacify the Jewish Christians; Rom_15:15 is irrelevant, Rom_15:20 no less so; the statement of Rom_15:19 : from Jerusalem to Illyricum, is unhistorical, derived from a later interest; Rom_15:22-23 do not agree with Rom_1:10-13; Rom_15:24; Rom_15:28, intimating that Paul intended to visit the Romans only on his route to Spain, are surprising; Rom_15:25-26 have been taken by the writer from the epistles to the Corinthians for his own purpose, in order to win over the Jewish Christians; the long series of persons saluted in chap. 16—a list of notabilities in the early Roman church—was intended to afford proof that Paul already stood in confidential relations to the best known members of the church, in connection with which several names, among them the
συγγενεῖς
of the apostle as well as Aquila and Priscilla, and their characterization are suspicious; Rom_15:17-20 are unsuitably placed, and without characteristic colouring; the position of the final doxology is uncertain; the entire complaisance towards the Jewish Christians conflicts with Galatians 1, 2 But this same (so-called) complaisance (according to Volkmar, “with all manner of excuses and half compliments”) is assumed utterly without ground, especially seeing that Paul had already in an earlier passage expressed so much of deep and true sympathy for his people (comp. Rom_9:1 ff., Rom_10:1-2, Rom_11:1-2; Rom_11:11 ff., et al.); and whatever else is discovered to be irrelevant, unsuitable, and unhistoric in the two chapters is simply and solely placed in this wrong light through the interest of suspicion; while, on the other hand, the whole language and mode of representation are so distinctively Pauline, that an interpolation so comprehensive would in fact stand unique, and how singular, at the same time, in being furnished with such different conclusions and fresh starts! See, further, Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 308 ff.; Delitzsch in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1849, p. 609 ff.; Th. Schott, p. 119 ff.; Wieseler in Herzog’s Encyklop. XX. p. 598 f.; Mangold, p. 67 ff.; Riggenbach in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1868, p. 41 ff.
Nevertheless Lucht, l.c., has once more come into very close contact with Baur, in proposing the hypothesis that the genuine epistle of Paul, extending to Rom_14:23, existed in an incomplete state; that thereupon, one hand, summing up the main points of the epistle in the (un-Pauline) doxology, added the latter after Rom_14:23; while another further continued the theme broken off at Rom_14:23, and subjoined an epilogue, along with greetings, to the Romans. In this way two editions arose, of which one (A) contained chap. 1–14 and Rom_16:25-27; while the other (B) contained chap, 1–14 and Rom_15:1-16; Rom_15:24; A and B were then supplemented from one another. That which Paul himself had appended after Rom_14:23, was removed from it by the Roman clergy, and laid up in their archives (out of consideration for the ascetics, namely); but subsequently it, along with fragments of an epistle to the Ephesians, which had also been placed in the archives, had been worked in by the composer of chap. 15 and 16. This entire hypothesis turns upon presuppositions and combinations which are partly arbitrary in themselves, and partly without any solid ground or support in the detailed exegesis.
[7] The two chapters are supposed, forsooth, to belong to a Pauline writer, “who, in the spirit of the author of the book of Acts, wished to oppose to the sharp anti-Judaism of the apostle a softening and soothing counterpoise in favour of the Judaists, and in the interests of unity.” The 15th chapter is supposed to have its original in 2Co_10:13-18.—Hilgenfeld has not adhered to Baur’s view.
