The authenticity of the
doxology normally labeled Rom. 16:25–27 has long been questioned, and it is now
widely regarded as a non-Pauline interpolation. Walter Schmithals has argued
that the doxology was originally intended as the ending not just of Romans but
of an early collection of Paul’s letters, but cogent arguments against this
view have been presented by Harry Gamble, Jr. Other scholars have maintained
that the doxology originated as the conclusion of a 14-chapter version of
Romans, perhaps in Marcionite circles. While rejecting a Marcionite origin,
Gamble agrees that the doxology first stood at the end of a shortened,
14-chapter version of the letter and was subsequently moved variously to the
end of ch. 15 and the end of ch. 16. Larry W. Hurtado, however, has examined
Gamble’s arguments and concluded that they are ‘very weak and inconclusive’. In
Hurtado’s view, the doxology may well have originated to conclude Romans 16 and
subsequently been adopted as the ending for a shortened, 14-chapter version of
Romans.
Gamble cites three arguments for
regarding the doxology as a non-Pauline interpolation: (1) ‘in terms of style,
the conclusion of a letter with a doxology stands in clear contrast to Paul’s
habit of concluding with the grace-benediction’; (2) ‘the terminological and
conceptual affinities of the doxology lie mainly with the deutero-Pauline
letters (Ephesians, the Pastorals)’; and (3) ‘textual observations demonstrate
that the doxology was originally appended to the fourteen-chapter text of
Romans’, which cannot have originated with Paul. Thus, in his view, the
evidence for interpolation is primarily text-critical, contextual, linguistic,
ideational and comparative in nature.
a. Text-Critical Evidence for Interpolation
Brendan Byrne notes that the
‘textual credentials’ of the material commonly labeled Rom. 16:25–27 are
‘uncertain;’ somewhat more categorically, J.K. Elliott asserts that ‘the
conclusion to the epistle to the Romans is a major problem in textual criticism’.
First, it is to be noted that the verses are missing altogether in some
witnesses. According to Origen, they did not appear in the text used by Marcion
(second century), and a text without the doxology is implied by Priscillian
(fourth century) and attested by Jerome (fourth/fifth centuries); in addition,
the verses are missing in the ninth-century bilingual uncial manuscripts F
(Codex Augiensis) and G (Codex Boernerianus), the fourteenth-century minuscule
629, and the ninth-century Latin Manuscript g. Further, the doxology appears
not to have been present in the exemplar from which the sixth-century uncial D
(Codex Claromontanus) was copied, and Gamble argues cogently that it was
originally absent from the Old Latin text as a whole. The text-critical
principle of ‘transcriptional probability’—what a scribe is most likely to have
done—suggests that, on the face of it, the addition of such a doxology would be
more likely than its deletion. Thus, the absence of these verses from some of
the witnesses suggests that they may be a later addition to the text of Paul’s
Roman letter.
Second, although the doxology
does appear in the vast majority of the witnesses, it is variously located,
appearing after ch. 15 in the oldest surviving manuscript (the late-second or
early-third century P46), after ch. 16 in most of the ‘best’
witnesses, after ch. 14 in a large number of witnesses, after both ch. 14 and
ch. 16 in a few witnesses including the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus (A),
and after both ch. 14 and ch. 15 in one fourteenth-century manuscript (1506).
Such variation indicates great uncertainty in the early Church regarding the
appropriate location of the passage. Together with the omission of the verses
by some witnesses, this further strengthens the case for viewing the passage as
a later addition. Moreover, if the doxology originated as the conclusion for a
shortened, 14-chapter version of Romans, as Gamble and others believe, it is
unlikely to be Pauline.
Finally, two interesting textual
variants in the doxology suggest that it may, in its original form, have been
regarded by some as an inappropriate conclusion to Paul’s Roman letter and
therefore modified. The first of these variants is the addition in v. 26 of καὶ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (‘and the appearance of our
Lord Jesus Christ’) after διά τε γραφῶν προγητικῶν
(‘through prophetic writings’)—an apparent attempt further to ‘Christianize’
the doxology by specifying that the μυστήριον (‘mystery’) had been ‘manifested’ (φανερωθέντος) not only through ‘prophetic
writings’ but pre-eminently through ‘the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ’.
The second textual variant is either the omission of ᾧ or the substitution of αὐτῷ in v. 27. As William Sanday and Arthur
C. Headlam note, ‘both [of] these look very much like corrections’, perhaps
intended to make clear that the ascription of praise was directed toward ‘the
only wise God’, not toward ‘Jesus Christ’.
All of this—the omission of the
doxology in some witnesses, its placement at various locations in others and
the textual variants within it—suggest that the verses may well be a later
addition to Paul’s Roman letter.
b. Contextual Evidence for Interpolation
As already indicated, the
doxology normally labeled Rom. 16:25–27 is variously located in the early
witnesses: at the end of ch. 14, at the end of ch. 15, at the end of ch. 16, at
the end of both ch. 14 and ch. 16 and at the end of both ch. 15 and ch. 16. In
view of evidence for the early existence of a 14-chapter version, a 15-chapter
version, and a 16-chapter version of Romans, it appears that the doxology, in
whichever location, was originally intended as the conclusion of Paul’s letter
to the Romans. Ending a letter with a doxology, however, is not otherwise a
feature of the Pauline corpus. To be sure, doxologies do appear elsewhere in
the authentically Pauline letters, as they do in other early Christian
writings,26 but they never
come at the end of a Pauline letter. Indeed, every other letter in the Pauline
corpus (including Hebrews) concludes not with a doxology but rather with a
benediction. It is perhaps for this reason that a few ancient witnesses add a
benediction—ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν.
ἀμήν (‘the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with all of you.
Amen’)—after v. 27. Doxologies do appear, however, at the conclusion of some
post-Pauline Christian letters. Thus, the location of the doxology at the end
of Paul’s letter to the Romans constitutes an argument for interpolation.
It is also significant that,
while the other doxologies in the authentically Pauline letters appear to grow
out of and reflect the immediately preceding material in the letter, Rom.
16:25–27 represents a ‘self-contained’ body of material that bears little
relation to its immediate context; in this respect, it is more closely akin to
post-Pauline and particularly pseudo-Pauline doxologies. Thus, both the
location of Rom. 16:25–27 at the very end of the letter and its apparent
independence from the immediately preceding material raise questions regarding
its authenticity.
c. Linguistic Evidence for Interpolation
Linguistic evidence for viewing
Rom. 16:25–27 as a non-Pauline interpolation involves matters of both style and
vocabulary. As regards style, none of
the other three doxologies in the authentically Pauline letters even approaches
the length or syntactical complexity of Rom. 16:25–27. Two of the others are
virtually identical: Rom. 11:36b (αὐτῳ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας,
ἀμήν) and Gal. 1:5 (ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων,
ἀμήν), and the third, Phil. 4:20 (τῷ δὲ Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν), is only
slightly longer. While Rom. 16:25–27 contains 53 words, Rom. 11:36b has only
seven words, Gal. 1:5 only nine, and Phil. 4:20 only 14. In the pseudo-Pauline
writings, however, the doxologies are longer, in one case coming rather close
to the length of Rom. 16:25–27. Moreover, as J.K. Elliott notes, the syntax of
Rom. 16:25–27 is much more complicated than that of the three undoubtedly
Pauline doxologies: ‘Three prepositional phrases depend on the infinitive στηρίξαι;
three participles in apposition qualify μυστηρίου; two prepositional
phrases illuminate φανερωθέντος’; moreover, there are
‘three indirect objects including one relative’ and ‘one dative of time’, ‘διά
appears twice, κατά three times and εἰς
three times’; finally, ‘no finite verb is expressed’. According to Elliott,
‘this suggests a well-rehearsed and liturgically inspired composition’. Thus,
quite apart from its content, the literary style of Rom. 16:25–27 calls
attention to itself as not typically Pauline.
In addition, although some of the
vocabulary of the doxology is typically Pauline, much of it is not. Following a
detailed word-by-word analysis of the language of the passage, Elliott
summarizes his findings as follows:
Three phrases in particular brand
the doxology as non-Pauline. These are χρόνοις αἰωνίοις, γραφῶν προφητικῶν
and κατʼ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ αἰωνίου Θεοῦ. Τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and σοφῳ Θεῷ are unique expressions in the New Testament. Κήρυγμα and ἐπιταγή seem to bear a more general meaning than is found elsewhere
in the New Testament and this possibly indicates a later date when these terms
had become less specific. Τῷ δυναμένῳ and στηρίξαι belong to the language of
doxologies although the parallels to Paul’s writings are not precise. Κατὰ ἀπο—κάλυψιν μυστηρίου is an expression with differences from the authentic
Pauline letters. Σεσιγμένου
has a different usage from the rest of Paul’s epistles.
Elliott concludes that, ‘although
some of the vocabulary closely parallels Paul’s own writings, the doxology is
unlikely to be from his pen’. In his view, there is simply ‘too high a
percentage of unusual or unique expressions’ in the scope of ‘the fifty odd
words of the doxology’.
d. Ideational Evidence for Interpolation
The most significant ideational
argument for viewing Rom. 16:25–27 as a non-Pauline interpolation is its
reference to the ‘revelation of [the] mystery that had been kept silent for
eternal ages but was now made manifest’ (ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγημένου φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν).
To be sure, there are references elsewhere in the authentically Pauline letters
to ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον), either in the singular or
in the plural, and Paul’s message, the ‘gospel’, is perhaps labeled a
‘mystery’. Elsewhere in the authentically Pauline letters, however, it is only
in 1 Cor. 2:6–16 that such a ‘hidden but now revealed’ schema appears, and I
have argued in Chapter 6 that this passage is a non-Pauline interpolation.
Otherwise, this ‘revelation schema’ appears only in pseudo-Pauline or other
post-Pauline texts.
e. Comparative Evidence for Interpolation
It has already been noted that,
apart from Romans, the authentically Pauline letters never end with a doxology
but post-Pauline letters sometimes do. Further, as has been noted, post-Pauline
doxologies, like that at the end of Romans, tend to be longer and more complex
in their syntactical structure than the authentically Pauline doxologies. In
addition, some of the vocabulary of Rom. 16:25–27 is more typical of
post-Pauline doxologies than of the authentically Pauline ones. Included here
are the phrase τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ (‘to the one being able’), στηρίξαι
(‘to strengthen’) and μόνος (‘only’) as a quality of God.
Finally, as noted above, the ‘hidden-but-now-revealed mystery’ notion is
characteristic of the post-Pauline and particularly pseudo-Pauline writings but
not of the authentically Pauline letters. All of this suggests that the Rom.
16:25–27 was both composed and added to Paul’s Roman letter by someone other
(and later) than Paul.
f. Situational, Motivational and Locational Evidence for Interpolation
Any discussion of situational,
motivational and locational evidence for interpolation in the case of Rom.
16:25–27 is, of course, complicated by the fact that these verses appear at
various locations in Paul’s letter to the Romans. Whether the doxology originated
as the conclusion of a 14-chapter, a 15-chapter or a 16-chapter version of
Romans, however, the situation, motivation and location would appear obvious.
Without the doxology, a 14-chapter version would end quite abruptly and
uncharacteristically with Paul’s discussion of eating (ch. 14); in short, some
sort of ending would be required. Similarly, without the doxology, a 16-chapter
version would end somewhat abruptly and uncharacteristically with greetings but
nothing else. The situation is somewhat different for a 15-chapter version,
because ch. 15 does end with a short benediction, ‘The God of peace be with you
all. Amen’. Even this, however, is not a typical ending for a Pauline letter,
all of which, except that in Galatians, include not only a benediction but also
some type of greeting. Thus, like the 14-chapter and 16-chapter versions, a
15-chapter version of Romans would appear to require something more at the end.
g. Conclusion
On the basis primarily of
text-critical, contextual, linguistic, ideational and comparative evidence,
most scholars have concluded—correctly, in my judgment—that the doxology
normally labeled Rom. 16:25–27 is a non-Pauline interpolation. (William O.
Walker, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters [Journal for the Study of
the New Testament Supplement Series 213; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001],
190–199)
