Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] Re: Did Paul Write All of Romans?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jamiller <jamiller AT nbi.ispkenya.com>
  • To: corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Re: Did Paul Write All of Romans?
  • Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:53:35 -0600

The question of the authenticity of the doxology at the end of Romans (16:25–27) constitutes a complex problem in no small part because the textual history of the last two chapters of Romans as a whole is so messy. Here I only identify the key issues involved in a judgment regarding authenticity and offer a brief response.

Challenges to its authenticity arise on the basis of three issues: 1) the passage appears at the end of both the 14 and 16 chapter versions of Romans (and at the end of ch. 15 in p46!), 2) the presence of words and expressions that resemble those found in Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles (widely regarded as post-Pauline letters), and 3) the fact that a doxology at the end of a Pauline letter is unusual.

Responses can be mounted in favor of authenticity with regard to all three issues. 1) The presence of these verses throughout the textual tradition is quite strong. Although it appears at various places in the text, the evidence for its absence is slim. We can posit that the pericope was added early, thus accounting for its widespread presence in the tradition. But this position can only remain a conjecture apart from additional evidence. In other words, the the textual tradition favors its authenticity rather than its absence. 2) The wisdom language characteristic of 16:25–27 sounds like that found not only in Ephesians and the Pastorals, but in 1 Cor. 1:24 as well. In addition, the passage contains unusual vocabulary because it is a highly stylized doxology. 3) 1 Cor. 16:24 demonstrates that Paul can include a doxology at the end of the letter (Why would we think that Paul not capable of doing so?). In addition, Romans constitutes an exception to the typical Pauline letter form no matter what one decides regarding the ending to the letter.

In recent years, more scholars seem to accept the passage as authentic than in the past. In previous years, I suspect the acceptability of positing interpolations wherever one found a difficulty in the text contributed to the readiness of scholars to judge the doxology as a post-Pauline addition. Confirming or invalidating my suspicion remains a matter for further research.

For arguments against the doxology's authenticity, see Harry Gamble, Jr. The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans. SD 42. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. For arguments in favor of its genuineness, see Larry Hurtado, "The Doxology at the End of Romans," in New Testament Textual Criticism, eds. Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 185–99. For concise summaries of the problem, see James C. Miller, The Obedience of Faith, the Eschatological People of God, and the Purpose of Romans (SBLDS 177; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 181–86 and N. T. Wright, "Romans," in The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. X (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 767–68.

James C. Miller
Nairobi Evangelical Graduate School of Theology

  • [Corpus-Paul] Re: Did Paul Write All of Romans?, Jamiller, 12/07/2004

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page