The Shorter Edition(S)
THE SHORTER EDITION(S)
There are problems at the end of Romans. From the fact that the doxology (16:25–27) is found at the end of chapter 15 in the very important P46 (the oldest extant MS of the Pauline epistles) some, notably T. W. Manson, have reasoned that there was at one time a 15-chapter edition.81 This cannot be dismissed as impossible. It is easy to conjecture that Paul wrote a 15-chapter edition or that chapter 16 with all its local interest was omitted when the letter circulated outside Rome. But it remains conjecture, and the lack of supporting evidence tells against it. The occurrence of the doxology at the end of chapter 15 may be significant. On the other hand it may mean no more than that one scribe did not think chapter 16 suitable for reading to a congregation. And we must bear in mind that neither with nor without the doxology does the close of chapter 15 conform to Paul’s normal way of closing letters.
There is more to be said for a 14-chapter edition.
1. The doxology is found at the end of chapter 14 in many MSS.82
2. Marcion appears to have had a 14-chapter edition. Tertullian says this,83 and Origen lends support.84
3. The Breves. One MS of the Vulgate, the Codex Amiatinus, has the usual 16 chapters, but it also has some numbered summaries of sections of the epistle, which are called breves. No. 50 reads, “Concerning the danger of grieving a brother by one’s food, and that the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” This clearly refers to 14:13–23. No. 51, however, reads, “Concerning the mystery of the Lord kept in silence before the passion, his truth having been revealed after the passion.”85 This surely refers to the doxology (16:25–27). Thus these summaries are no doubt based on a shorter edition and not on the 16-chapter edition to which they are now attached.86 They are found in a number of other MSS, so the system was widely used. Harry Gamble also points to Codex Fuldensis, in which Romans 1–14 is divided into 23 sections followed by the Amiatine divisions 24–51.87 There are problems here, but since the Fuldensian divisions end at chapter 14 this is further evidence for a 14-chapter edition. We should add a reference to an ancient concordance to the Pauline epistles found in some Vulgate MSS where heading no. 42 refers to Romans 14:17ff., and no. 43 to the doxology.88
4. Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Cyprian make no quotations from chapters 15 and 16.89 They have left rather full writings, and some of the matter in these chapters would have been useful to them. They stand in contrast to Clement of Alexandria, who has quite a number of citations from these two chapters. But early Western writers generally make no appeal to Romans 15–16. As Gamble puts it, “the cumulative argumentum e silentio is quite strong: there is a consensus of Western writers through the third century, no part of the text is quoted even where its appropriateness is obvious, and the extent of the text is such that silence on it can have but one explanation: chs. 15 and 16 of the Roman letter were not generally known in the West for a long time.”90
5. The Marcionite Prologue to Romans says that the letter was written “from Athens”.91 This presupposes the 14-chapter edition, since the last two chapters so clearly point to Corinth as the place of origin (15:25–27; 16:1, 23).
All this convinces most students that a 14-chapter edition did at one time exist. But it is not clear how this was related to the longer edition. One suggestion is that the shorter form came first and that it was written as a circular.92 Those who hold this remind us of the absence of “in Rome” from some MSS. They suggest that when Paul wanted to write to the Romans, he adapted an original circular with the insertion of the appropriate words in 1:7, 15 and the addition of the last two chapters.
There are, however, strong objections. Thus it is not easy to think that the warm words of 1:8–15 were not originally meant for any specific people (see also 1:6). Again, there is not a great deal of evidence that the words “in Rome” were missing at the same time as chapters 15 and 16.93 A very important consideration is that the argument does not break off at the end of chapter 14 but continues right on to 15:13. It is difficult to think of a reason why Paul should have ended the letter at 14:23. The authenticity of chapter 15 seems obvious to most students. But if Paul did not write it when he wrote chapters 1–14, when did he write it? There is no obvious answer. Some scholars add that they find affinities between 1:8–13 and 15:14–32. These are not so much repetitions and the like as the kind of thinking natural in two parts of the same letter. For such reasons we should reject the idea that the 14-chapter edition was original, though it was certainly used very widely.94
It seems, then, that we should take the longer edition as what Paul wrote. But this raises the interesting question of how the shorter edition came to exist. It is most unlikely that Paul himself should have cut off the end of his argument,95 and in any case 14:23 is a curious place to end an epistle. A number of suggestions have been made.
1. Scribes found little of value for general reading in the last two chapters, and thus omitted them. Gamble thinks that the shortening was due to a desire to make the letter more general.96 With the local features cut out, this great writing was seen to belong to the church at large. This is quite possible. But why stop at 14:23, in the middle of Paul’s argument?97 It would be a strange proceeding.
2. Some see the shortening as due to the demands of liturgy. When the letter was read during worship, the last two chapters were omitted as unsuitable for worship. This may be so, though it can never be more than a guess. And again, why stop at 14:23? The early part of chapter 15 at any rate is quite suitable in the liturgy.98
3. Many consider Marcion to be the most likely candidate. He would not have liked the way the Old Testament is used in chapter 15 (the quotations in vv. 9–12, and especially the way it is described in v. 4). Nor would he have cared to refer to Christ as “a servant to the circumcised” (v. 8).99 The principal objection to Marcion is that the shorter edition was used so widely. Could a heretic have had such a wide influence?
4. The shortening may have been accidental. The end of a papyrus scroll could easily be damaged and break off. Against this is the widespread use of the shorter version. Could one damaged copy have had such wide influence? Or several copies break off at exactly the same place?
None of the suggestions is entirely convincing. There are strong objections to them all. Perhaps the view with most in its favor is that of Marcion, but we can scarcely put it more strongly than that.