Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Romans 16
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Rom_16:5. Ἀσίας ] Elz. has Ἀχαΐας , against almost equally decisive evidence; but it is defended by Ammon and de Wette on the testimony of the Peschito, and because 1Co_16:15 might certainly give occasion for changing Ἀχ . into Ἀς . But the reading Ἀχ . might readily also have come into the text through the mere marginal writing of the parallel passage 1 Cor. l.c., especially if it was considered that Paul wrote his letter in Achaia; hence the greatly preponderant external attestation in favour of Ἀς . retains its validity.
Rom_16:6. ὕμᾶς ] approved by Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, according to A B C* à * min. Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Aeth. But Elz., Scholz, Tisch. 7, Fritzsche have ἡμᾶς . Since Paul in the context sends greeting to persons who stood in a peculiar relation to himself, and thereby the alteration of ὑ ì ᾱ͂ ς into ἡμᾶς was very easily suggested, the more does the external evidence turn the scale in favour of ὑμᾶς , especially as the reading ἐν ὑμῖν in D E F G, Vulg. It. Ruf. Ambrosiast. attests the original εἰς ὑμᾶς (of which it is an interpretation).
Rom_16:7. οἳ … γέγον .] D E F G: τοῖς πρὸ ἐμοῦ . Gloss, following on a mistaken reference of the relative to ἀποστόλοις .
Rom_16:14. The order of the names: Ἑρμῆν , Πατρόβαν , Ἑρμᾶν (so Lachm. and Tisch., also Fritzsche) is rendered certain by A B C D* F G P à , min. VSS. Ruf.
Rom_16:16. πᾶσαι ] is wanting in Elz., but is justly adopted by Griesb., following Mill, and by later editors on decisive evidence, and because it might easily give offence.
Rom_16:18. καὶ εὐλογίας ] is wanting in D E F G, min. It. Omitted through the homoeoteleuton.
Rom_16:19. ἐφʼ ὑμῖν ] The ordinary reading of τό before ἐφʼ ὑμῖν has the greatest preponderance of evidence against it. Lachm. and Tisch.: ἐφʼ ὑμῖν οὖν χαίρω , as A B C L P à *, min. Dam. Ruf. read. Rightly: the sequence of the words in the Recepta ( χαίρω οὖν first) is the ordinary one.
After Rom_16:20, ἀμήν in Elz. is condemned by decisive testimony.
Rom_16:21. ἀσπάζονται ] Decisive witnesses have ἀσπάζεται . Commended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm., Tisch., and Fritzsche. The plural came to be introduced on account of the plurality of persons.
Rom_16:24 is wanting entirely in A B C à , 5, 137, Copt. Aeth. Vulg. ms. Harl.* Ruf.; it is found after Rom_16:27 in P, 17, 80, Syr. Arm. Aeth. Erp. Ambrosiast. Omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8; rejected also by Koppe and Reiche, who think that it is an interpolated repetition of the benediction, Rom_16:20, which, after the transference of Rom_16:25-27 to the end of chap. 14, was added in order not to leave the epistle without a conclusion. But the witnesses for omission are precisely those which have the doxology Rom_16:25-27 in the ordinary place, either merely in this place (as B C à , 137), or likewise also after chap. 14 (as A P, 5); and the witnesses for the transposition of the verse to the end are likewise not those, which have the doxology merely after chap. 14 or not at all. Hence we may with safety conclude that Rom_16:24 was omitted or transposed for the reason that copyists stumbled partly at the fact that Paul, contrary to his manner elsewhere, should have joined a blessing and a doxology together, and partly at least at the circumstance that he should have placed the latter after the former (all other epistles conclude with the blessing).
On the doxology, Rom_16:25-27. This is found (1) at the end of chap. 16., in B C D* E à , 16, 66,[33] 80, 137, 176, codd. in Ruf. codd. in Erasm. Syr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. ms. and ed. Clar. Germ. Ruf. Ambrosiast. Pel. and the other Latin Fathers. (2) It is found at the end of chap. 14 in L and almost all min.; further, in the Greek lectionaries, the Arab. VSS., in Polyglots, Syr. p. Goth. (?) Slav. ms. and ed. codd. in Ruf. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl. Oecum. Theodul. (3) It is found at both places in A P, 5, 17, 109, lat. Finally (4), it is not found at all in D***[34] F G (where, however, after chap. 14, a gap of six lines is left), codd. in Erasm. codd. in Jerome,[35] Marcion. See the complete examination of the evidence in Reiche, Comm. crit., and Tisch. 8, also Lucht, p. 49 ff.
Among the critics and exegetes, (1) the ordinary position in chap. 16 has been maintained by the Complut. Erasm. Steph. Beza (ed. 3–5), Calvin, Bengel, Koppe, Böhme, Rinck, Lachmann, Köllner, Scholz, Fritzsche, de Wette, Rückert, Reithmayr, Philippi, Tischendorf, Tholuck, Ewald, van Hengel, and others. (2) The position after Rom_14:23 has been approved by Grotius, Mill, Wetstein, and Semler, following Beza (ed. 1 and 2); Griesbach and Matthiae removed it to that place in their critical texts; and Morus, Paulus, Eichhorn, Klee, Schrader, Hofmann, Laurent, and others agree thereto. (3) The verses were rejected as spurious by Schmidt, Einl. in’s N. T. p. 227, Reiche, Krehl, Lucht.
Now the question is: Is the doxology genuine? and if it is, has it its original position at the close of chap. 14 or of chap. 16? We answer: I. The doxology is genuine. For (a) the witnesses for entire omission are, as against the preponderance of those who have it in one of the two passages or in both, much too weak, especially as the transposition and double insertion are very capable of explanation (see below), (b) The language and the entire character of it are highly Pauline,—a fact which even opponents must admit, who accordingly assume its compilation out of Pauline phrases.[36] (c) The contents of it admirably suit the entire contents of the epistle. (d) The internal reasons adduced against it by its assailants are completely untenable. It is maintained (see especially Reiche, and comp. Lucht): ( α ) That at each place, where the doxology appears, it is unsuitable. But it appears as disturbing the connection only after Rom_14:23, and it is not at all unsuitable after chap. 16, where it rather, after the closing wishes more than once repeated, forms with great appropriateness and emphasis the main conclusion which now actually ensues. ( β ) That it has not the simplicity of the Pauline doxologies, is pompous, overloaded, etc. It is certainly more bulky and laboured than others; but no other Pauline doxology stands at the end of an entire epistle where the great power of thought in the writing concentrated itself in feeling—no other at the end of a section, the purport and importance of which can be compared with that of the entire Epistle to the Romans. Hence it can by no means appear strange that such a doxology has obtained the character of overflowing fulness from the whole recollection of what had been written,—a collective recollection which, so far from being fitted to beget in a rich and lively disposition only an ordinary and plain thanksgiving to God, is fitted rather to produce an outpouring of fervour and fulness of thought, under the influence of which the interest of easy expression and of simple presentation falls into the background. ( γ ) That the whole conception is uncertain, many expressions and combinations are obscure, unusual, even quite unintelligible; and ( δ ) that the conjunction of εὐαγγ . μου καὶ τ . κήρυγμα Ἰ . Χ . is un-Pauline and unsuitable; as is in like manner φανερωθέντος , which verb is never used by Paul of the utterances of the prophets,—groundless occasions of offence, which are made to disappear by a correct explanation. On such internal grounds Reiche builds the hypothesis, that in the public reading the merely epistolary last two chapters were omitted; that the public reading thus ended at Rom_14:23; and the doxology spoken at the end of that reading was written first on the margin, afterwards also in the text, consequently after Rom_14:23, whence copyists, on recognising its unsuitable position, removed it to the end of the epistle. It is thus the work of an anagnostes, who compiled it clumsily from Pauline formulas, and that in imitation of the conclusion of the Epistle of Jude.[37] In opposition to this whole view, it is particularly to be borne in mind: (1) that the assumption that only the doctrinal part of the epistle was publicly read is a pure fancy, and is as much at variance with the high reverence for what was apostolic, as with the circumstance that, according to the lectionaries, these very chapters 15 and 16 consist wholly of sections for reading; (2) that at least Rom_15:1-13 would have been included in the reading, and the doxology must thus have obtained its place after Rom_15:13; (3) that the presumed custom of uttering a doxology when the reading of an apostolic writing was finished, does not at all admit of proof; (4) that a Pauline doxology would have been chosen for imitation more naturally than that of Jud_1:24-25, as indeed, conversely, Jude l.c. would more naturally presuppose an acquaintance with our passage; (5) that τὸ εὐαγγ . μου was not at all suitable to the person of an anagnostes; and indeed an imitative reader was hardly in the position and mood to pour forth an expression of praise in so overflowing a gush, and thereby in anacoluthic construction. But when Lucht refuses a Pauline character to the doxology, in respect not merely of form and diction, but also of the thought which it contains, and recognises in it a gnosticizing and conciliatory stamp, this judgment rests on misinterpretations in detail and on presuppositions, which lie altogether outside the range of the N. T., along with a recourse to the rejection of the genuineness not merely of the Pastoral epistles, but also of the so-called epistles of the captivity.
II. The position of the doxology after Rom_16:24 is the original one. For (a) the external witnesses for this view are preponderant, not indeed in number, but in value. See above, and compare Gabler, Praef. ad Griesb., Opusc. p. 24. (b) Its position at the end of chap. 16 was quite fitted to excite offence and to occasion a transposition, partly because no other epistle of the apostle concludes with a doxology; partly because here even the usual formal conclusion of an epistle (the apostolical blessing) immediately precedes; partly because ὑμᾶς στηρίξαι seemed specially to refer back to the section respecting the weak in faith. The latter point was decisive at the same time as to the place to which—the connection between chap. 14 and 15 as a unity being far from sufficiently appreciated—the doxology was referred, namely after Rom_14:23, where there is the last direct mention of the weak, while Rom_15:1 then turns directly to the strong. Several other defenders of the ordinary position (see especially Koppe, Exc. II. p. 404; Gabler, l.c. p. 26; Bertholdt, Einleit. VI. § 715; Hug, Einl. II. p. 397, with whom Reithmayr agrees) thought, indeed, that the omission of at least chap. 16 in the reading of the letter had occasioned the beautiful and weighty doxology, which it was desired should not be excluded from the reading, to be placed after chap. 14—not after chap. 15, either (Bertholdt, Hug) because chap. 15 has already a conclusion, or because the supposed reference of στηρίξαι to the weak in faith pointed out that place. But the whole supposition that an integral portion of the epistle was omitted in reading is entirely incapable of being established. Not more plausible is the theory to which Rinck has recourse (comp. already Zeger and Böhme): “In codd. ex recensione Marcionis perscriptis librarios, ipso fortasse Marcione auctore, clausulam ex fine epistolae assuisse, et postquam quod deerat a correctoribus suppletum esset, alios hanc clausulam iterasse, alios hinc, alios illinc, alios utrimque ejecisse” (Lucubr. crit. p. 135). Marcion himself and his disciples rejected (Origen, interpr. Ruf.), indeed, the doxology on account of its contents (see especially Rom_16:26, διά τε γραφῶν προφητικῶν ); but the orthodox certainly did not concern themselves with Marcionitic copies; indeed, Origen says expressly, that in the copies “quae non sunt a Marcione temerata,” the doxology is found differently placed either after chap. 14 or after chap. 16 Ewald, regarding Rom_16:3-20 as the fragment of an epistle to the Ephesians, believes that a reader somewhere about the beginning of the second century observed the heterogeneous character of that portion, but then excised too much, namely chap. 15 and 16. Such a copy, in his view, Marcion had; but now that chap. 14 was without a proper conclusion, at least the doxology Rom_16:25-27 came to be appended thereto by other copyists. But apart from the above opinion respecting Rom_16:3-20 in itself (see, in opposition to it, the critical notes on chap. 15), it would not be at all easy to see why they should not have removed merely Rom_16:3-20 from the copies, and why, instead of this, chap. 16 should have been entirely excised, and even chap. 15 in addition. To explain this, the smaller importance of this chapter—which, moreover, is assumed without historical warrant—does not suffice.
Further, if the genuineness of the doxology itself, as well as its customary position, is to be esteemed assured, it follows at the same time from what we have said (1) in respect of the duplication of the doxology after chap. 14 and 16 in critical authorities, that it proceeds from those who, while aware of the difference as to the place of the words, were not able or did not venture to decide respecting the original position, and hence, taking the certain for the uncertain, inserted the words in both places; (2) in respect of the entire omission in authorities, that it is the work of an old precarious criticism, which drew from the uncertain position the conclusion of non-genuineness, along with which there operated the consideration, that the doxology was unsuitable after Rom_14:23 as interrupting the connection, and after Rom_16:24 as having its place even after the concluding wish.
[33] A transcript of the first Erasmian edition, which, however, has on the margin the observation, that ἐν τοῖς παλαίοις ἀντιγράφοις this doxology stands at the end of chap. 14.
[34] In D, namely, the doxology from the first hand stands after chap. 16, but the emendator indicates it as to be deleted, without assigning it to the end of chap. 14.
[35] Jerome on Eph_3:5 : “Qui volunt prophetas non intellexisse, quod dixerint … illud quoque, quod ad Rom. in plerisque codd. invenitur, ad confirmationem sui dogmatis trahunt legentes: ei autem, qui potest vos roborare, etc.” But that already before Marcion the doxology was wanting in codd., there is no certain trace.
[36] Un-Pauline constituent elements and modes of representation, which Lucht believes are to be found generally in the two last chapters, have no existence in reality; the grounds of offence are disposed of by the exposition.
[37] In the Comment. crit. p. 116, Reiche is of opinion that it may have been added “a homine privato, qui ingenio suo indulgeret.”