Romans 16
ROMANS 16
CLOSING OF ROMANS (15:14—16:27), cont.
Commending the Bearer (16:1–2)
Although for a time scholars suspected that Romans 16 was the fragment of a letter to Ephesus appended to Romans, most now agree that it is an integral part of Romans. Paul knows so many of the people because people often traveled to and from Rome, and expelled Jewish believers Paul had met earlier (like Prisca and Aquila) have now returned there.1
In Rome as elsewhere in the urban Mediterranean world, respected persons wrote letters of recommendation to their peers to request favors for others.2 Paul elsewhere writes recommendations, but this is his most explicit (employing the same verb as when mentioning recommendation letters in 2 Cor 3:1). Why does he preface his more extensive greetings with this recommendation of a church leader from Cenchrea, Corinth’s Aegean port town? Phoebe was carrying the letter to the Romans, and letters sometimes identified special bearers.3 Phoebe’s status is important, because as the letter’s bearer who knew Paul’s intention directly, she might read it (hence “perform” it orally, and by gestures communicate his emphases and ironies) in the congregations in Rome;4 certainly she would be called on to explain elements if questions arose.5 They should welcome her, reciprocating her own hospitality to others (16:2).6
What does the passage reveal about her status?7 First, she is a diakonos of the Cenchrea church (16:1). Paul can employ this term quite generally (cf. a possibly related gift in 12:7). The title encompasses the ministry of Jesus (15:8), Paul (Rom 15:25; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Col 1:23–25), and his companions (Col 1:7). When employed for an office, it seems distinct from overseers (Phil 1:1; cf. 1 Tim 3:1–13), but Paul does not define it, nor is the “office” sense his usual usage. It thus seems safest to claim merely that she was a minister of some sort without defining the character of her ministry more specifically. If the office of diakonos was related to those in charge of the synagogue building, this role might relate to her function as patron of a house congregation, but we lack sufficient information to be certain.8
Second, she has been a prostatis to many. Most scholars concur that this term designates her as a “patron.”9 We know of many women patrons, though they were a minority;10 the most common independent, property-owning women might be widows, but others could also fill this role. In any case, she likely hosts the house congregation in Cenchrea,11 giving her some influence there, and probably had a home of ample size. Given the mercantile character of Cenchrea, she may be traveling to Rome on business; trade ties between Rome and Corinth were strong, and businesswomen did travel. Given Paul’s praise of her business skills, some suggest that he also hoped that she could raise support for his Spanish mission in Rome.
Greetings to Roman Believers (16:3–16)
Paul sends greetings to believers (probably mostly or wholly leaders) whom he knows or knows about in Rome, in some cases “recommending” them as well. Adding greetings to individuals at the end of letters was common12 (though usually not so many). Building rapport with one’s audience was important, but given the risks of inadvertently omitting anyone, Paul seems especially interested in building rapport here, probably because he plans to visit and has not been there previously. Western readers may think of greetings as mere formality, but they held a deeper social meaning in Paul’s culture. Paul’s personal interest in believers in Rome (as elsewhere) illustrates concretely the character of love he has been urging (12:3–5, 10; 13:8–10; 14:1—15:7; cf. 1:11–12; 15:23–24).
The constant travelers between Rome and Corinth (where Paul writes) and the various Jewish believers from Rome who had recently resided in Corinth and elsewhere during Claudius’s ban (Acts 18:2) help explain Paul’s knowledge of so many leaders in the church in Rome. While we can identify some persons as Jewish, we cannot certainly infer ethnicity from names; many Diaspora Jews used typical Gentile names (even named for pagan deities, such as Hermes).13 That Greek names are more common than Latin ones in Paul’s list suggests that, as we would expect, the churches have made the greatest inroads among eastern provincials living in Rome, as well as among slaves.14
Not all names require equal comment for this short volume. Particularly significant and different from some churches in the east is the dominance of women explicitly involved in some forms of ministry (16:1–7, 12).15 This is not surprising, since women exercised much more freedom in Rome (and in a Roman colony in Macedonia, Phil 4:2–3) than in much of the Greek east. Although Paul greets over twice as many men as women, he commends more women than men for ministry, perhaps partly because even in Rome their ministries still faced more challenges than men, hence invited more affirmation.16
Paul begins with Prisca and Aquila (16:3–5), his close coworkers in Corinth and Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19; Acts 18:1–2, 18, 26) who have now returned to Rome. It was unusual for a wife to be named first, as Prisca (a Latin name that had a more familiar form, Priscilla) usually is by Paul and Luke; this sequence signified either higher social status (as normally in antiquity)17 or higher status in the church (as possibly relevant in the churches).18 Paul calls them his “fellow workers,” a title that, along with diakonos (16:1), is among Paul’s most common designation for his colleagues in ministry (Rom 16:9, 16, 21; 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25; 4:3; Col 4:11; 1 Thess 3:2; Phlm 1, 24).
“Risking necks” was an idiom for risking lives (employing the image of beheading, 16:4).19 Somehow they may have protected Paul, whether in Corinth or (more often proposed) Ephesus, so that those touched by his Gentile mission owe gratitude to them. That the church meets in their “house” (16:5) may simply mean that it meets in their dwelling; the vast majority of dwellings in Rome itself were tenement apartments, the larger homes being nearer the ground floor.20 (Upper floor apartments might include barely enough room to sleep. Rome’s structures were notoriously unstable and flammable, worse near the top; much of this housing perished in the fire of 64 CE a few years later.)
Even if this family did use a house (as they may have in Ephesus; 1 Cor 16:19), it is noteworthy that this label is not applied to the other congregations implied in this chapter. Possibly guests could also be accommodated in the long hall connecting apartments on upper floors, if neighbors proved amenable. Because ground floor rooms were often businesses with small mezzanine apartments for sleeping above the work area, some have suggested that the church may have met in such a place (cf. Acts 18:3).
As “firstfruits” of the Roman province of Asia, Epaenetus (a Greek name, 16:5) was probably converted through Paul’s early Ephesian ministry (Acts 18:19—19:41). Romans had a name like “Mary” (literally Maria, 16:5), but it is also a frequent variant (including in every other usage in the NT) of “Miriam,” by far the most common name of Jewish women (especially in Palestine). Like Persis in 16:12, Mary “labored much” (16:6); the context and “for you” suggest spiritual labor, as in Paul’s own ministry (1 Cor 15:10; Gal 4:11; Phil 2:16; Col 1:29) and that of others (1 Cor 16:16; 1 Thess 5:12).
Andronicus and Junia seem to be a husband-wife apostolic team (16:7; brother-sister is less likely, and anything else would have been scandalous). “Junia” is plainly a woman’s name, as ancient commentators commonly recognized (and often found surprising).21 It is grammatically possible to read “of note among the apostles” as being honored by other apostles,22 but Paul nowhere else appeals to the opinion of “the apostles” as a group, so most scholars prefer the other possible grammatical reading, namely, that Paul calls them “noteworthy apostles.” The larger question is what Paul means by calling them apostles. Whereas Luke usually reserves the title for the Twelve, Paul applies the title much more widely (beginning with his own ministry; see 1 Cor 15:5–7; Gal 1:19; 1 Thess 2:7 [with 1:1]). Detractors to Junia being an apostle note that Paul speaks twice of apostles (commissioned agents) of churches; yet these are always specified as such (2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). One cannot insist that Paul speaks here merely of “agents of churches” as opposed to his normal sense of “apostles,” since he offers no such specification here, unless one argues on the basis that women could not be apostles (which would constitute a circular argument here, assuming what it is designed to prove). The other uses in Romans apply to himself (1:1; 11:13). We should keep in mind, however, that Paul’s broader usage for an agent commissioned by Christ does not specify, as people sometimes assume, “members of the Twelve” or “writers of Scripture.”23 It does seem to imply special authorization and is normally accompanied by suffering (1 Cor 4:9) and signs and wonders (2 Cor 12:12).
Although Paul could employ “fellow prisoners” figuratively,24 he later employs the language for those who were with him at least somehow in his captivity (Col 4:10; Phlm 23); given Paul’s “many imprisonments” (2 Cor 11:23), we cannot be sure where (in view of 1 Cor 15:32, perhaps Ephesus?). That they were “in Christ” before Paul, however, suggests that they belonged to the Jerusalem church. Their Greek (Andronicus) and Latin (Junia) names suggest that they hailed from Diaspora families in Jerusalem, possibly in Junia’s case descended from freed slaves of Roman citizens (as Paul likely was; thus they may have attended the same “synagogue of freedpersons” mentioned by Luke in Acts 6:9).25 But while it might therefore be tempting to envision Junia as Paul’s “relative” in a closer sense, Paul uses the term “kin” (suggenēs) here for all fellow Jews (Rom 9:3; 16:11, 21).
“Ampliatus” and “Urbanus” (16:8–9) were common slave names; if Paul met them in the east, they are probably freedmen.26 Given the movement’s birth in Rome’s Jewish community, many think that the “household of Aristobulus” (16:10) refers to slaves and freedpersons of the Herodian prince Aristobulus, who lived in Rome, though he himself may have died by this point. (A “household” included slaves and freedpersons.) A Jew named “Herodion” (16:11) may have also been a slave or freedperson from the Herodian family. (Slaves in prominent households were often well-educated, and could wield significant power.) Some scholars think that the “household of Narcissus” (16:11) refers to those attached to the powerful and wealthy imperial freedman Narcissus. The period and location do fit, though in the vast city of Rome it is not surprising that there were other freedpersons and slaveholders with this name.
The matching names “Tryphaena” and “Tryphosa” (16:12) suggest twin sisters. “Persis” (16:12) was a common name for slaves imported from Persia, so she may have been a slave or freedwoman. Because Paul knew Rufus’s mother (16:13),27 it is plausible that this is the Rufus known soon afterward to Mark’s possibly Roman audience, the son of Simon of Cyrene (Mark 15:21). Since Diaspora Jewish believers were scattered from Jerusalem, and many Cyrenian ones settled in Antioch (Acts 8:4; 11:20), Paul could have known the family there.28 The multiple names in the two congregations in 16:14, 15 suggest multiple leaders and perhaps sizeable congregations; Paul may have less personal acquaintance with these individuals (not even informed as to the name of Nereus’s sister).
Kissing (16:16) was employed for greeting relatives or close friends in antiquity. Though typically on the mouth, such light kisses were normally readily distinguishable from the erotic ones emphasized in modern Western culture.29 (The “holy” kiss specifies its limits; still, later abuses led to more explicit restrictions in the churches.) Paul here might practice the rare but attested custom of secondary kissing, something like “Give so-and-so a kiss for me.”30 Whether Paul simply advises believers to kiss each other, or to convey his kiss greetings, his admonition would help cement unity. He sends greetings from the churches of the east (16:16) and will offer more specific greetings in 16:21–23.
Beware Selfish Teachers (16:17–20)
Paul offers a final, closing exhortation.31 While it is framed in general terms, its warning against those who cause division (dichostasia, “factious hostility”; 16:17) is relevant to the problems among believers in Rome (see particularly 14:1—15:7), especially since these schismatics also cause “stumbling” (16:17; cf. 14:4, 13, 21). Paul also earlier held as a standard the teaching they had received (including the gospel, 6:17); this message offered the criterion for evaluating other teachings.
That such contentious persons who hurt others’ faith were “slaves not of Christ but of their own bellies” (16:18) recalls Paul’s earlier teaching about being slaves of God rather than sin (6:6, 16–22; 7:6; 12:11; 14:18) and comments on passions and desires (1:24, 26; 6:12; 7:5, 7–8; 13:14). It might also hint at those reluctant to forgo foods for the sake of others’ faith (14:21), but need not be construed so narrowly; moralists regularly mentioned “bellies” (originally as a metonymy for gluttony) for self-indulgence (also in 1 Cor 6:13; Phil 3:19).32 Because Paul has not mentioned “opponents” elsewhere in this letter (despite 3:8), he might warn about a potential external threat (cf. Phil 3:2), or he might envision the possibility of some current leaders being corrupted (cf. Acts 20:29–30). Though sensitive to build rapport, Paul disclaimed flattery (1 Thess 2:5); his rhyming “fine” and “blessing” speech (chrēstologia, eulogia) warns against those who would merely encourage and pander to hearers’ desires (cf. 2 Tim 4:3; 2 Pet 2:1–3, 10–14). Especially if it is connected with the following context (16:20), Paul’s mention of deception in 16:18 might echo the killing role of sin exploiting the law in 7:11 (which some see as an echo of how the devil destroyed Adam; cf. Gen 3:13).
Paul, whose mission is to bring Gentiles to obey Israel’s God (1:5; 15:18; 16:25), encourages them that their obedience is widely known (16:19; for the fame of the capital’s church, cf. 1:8; for Paul’s encouragement in the midst of exhortation, cf. 15:14–15). Nevertheless, he wants them to be “wise” in good matters (contrast 1:22) and “innocent” or unskilled in what is evil (16:19).33 He is not suggesting that they should be naïve regarding evildoers, a potential interpretation that he has already expressly disavowed at the end of 16:18. In view of 16:20, it is possible that Paul has in mind the disastrous consequences of the first humans partaking from the tree that provided experiential knowledge of the difference between good and evil (cf. Rom 5:12–21; Gen 3:5).
When Paul speaks of God crushing Satan under their feet (16:20), he probably thinks of Gen 3:15 in light of a line of Jewish tradition that identified Satan or the devil with the serpent in that passage (cf. Rev 12:9).34 Because they belong to the new Adam (5:12–21), perhaps understood as the woman’s promised seed of Gen 3:15, their victory is certain, even if not yet consummated.35
Greetings from Corinth (16:21–23)
Having sent greetings to individuals in Rome, Paul now includes greetings from others to the church in Rome, also a common custom in letters.36 Timothy is one of Paul’s chief companions (e.g., 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10; Phil 2:19–22; 1 Thess 3:2), who will soon leave with Paul for Jerusalem (Acts 20:4). Likewise, Jason37 and Sosipater (a variant form of Sopater) are with Paul in Corinth as Macedonian delegates for the collection that all of them will soon accompany to Jerusalem (Acts 17:5–9; 20:4; cf. Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 9:4; 1 Cor 16:3). The author of Acts, traditionally identified as “Luke,” may have accompanied Paul from Philippi (Acts 20:5–6); whether this is the “Lucius” of the present verse (who might then have gone on ahead to Philippi) is difficult to say.38
Tertius (whose Latin name suggests a third-born male) in 16:22 was the scribe who penned the letter at Paul’s dictation. Scribes were sometimes professionals and sometimes educated slaves of the wealthy; the poor needed their help, and the rich could afford it.39 That he adds his own greeting suggests that he belonged to the Christian community, presumably in Corinth (from which Paul is writing).
Scholars debate how Gaius was “host” to the entire church in Corinth (16:23), which now met in multiple homes. Some think he had a wealthy villa where all the house churches could assemble together periodically; others believe that he was the original church’s sponsor (before multiple assemblies grew), his full Roman name being Gaius Titius Justus (Acts 18:7). Perhaps he simply had shown hospitality to many and Paul offers hyperbolic praise. In any case, he is a patron and person of means, presumably part of Corinth’s citizen class (who were Roman citizens). As “Tertius” (16:22) identifies a third-born male, “Quartus” (16:23) identifies a fourth-born.
Most intriguing is Erastus, city treasurer or manager (16:23). Because the Greek phrase describing his work here is more general than a corresponding Latin one would be, scholars debate his exact role. An inscription from this era mentions one Erastus (presumably from the city’s same political class) as Corinth’s aedile. While some scholars believe that a different Erastus is in view, others (including the editor of the Corinthian inscriptions) identify them.40 Although a “manager” (oikonomos) was usually of lower status than an aedile (because the former was a much more common office), it was also one of the Greek terms used to translate the Latin title aedile.41 Alternatively, aedile may have been a subsequent office that Erastus held. Candidates for the office of aedile had to be wealthy, since they offered pledges of the funds they would provide the city if elected.42 Since Paul grants no Christian title, possibly Erastus was simply a patron for the Christian community rather than a member (like the Asiarchs in Acts 19:31).43 The Erastus of Acts 19:22 is clearly a believer, but a Corinthian political figure probably would not be free to travel with Paul (though cf. 2 Tim 4:20).
Praising God’s Wisdom (16:25–27)
Paul has been concluding his letter in stages (greetings to Rome, a closing exhortation, greetings from Corinth), and now offers a final praise to God (cf. 1:25; 9:5; esp. 11:33–36). Some manuscripts relocate this closing doxology to after 14:23 or elsewhere (or include it in both locations), and a few omit it (though most early manuscripts have it here, and the widest geographic range also supports its inclusion).44 The passage provides such a fitting conclusion for Romans, however, it seems likelier designed by Paul than by a typical scribe.45 As 15:14–33 repeats many themes of 1:8–15, so 16:25–27 recalls earlier material, especially 1:2–5 (the most important echo being the “obedience of faith”).46 As 11:33–36 praised God for his wisdom in designing history (11:1–32), so here Paul again praises the “only wise God,” the designer of history.
Earlier points in Romans
God is powerful to “establish” you according to my gospel (16:25)
I yearn to share some grace-gift by God’s Spirit so you may be “established” (1:11)
“my gospel” (16:25)
God will judge people according to “my gospel” (2:16); Paul serves the gospel (1:1, 9, 16; 15:16, 19–20; cf. 10:15–16) and wants to share it with them (1:15)
“Preaching” of Jesus Christ (16:25)
Preaching (10:8, 14–15)
apokalupsis
God’s righteousness “revealed” in the gospel (1:17)
“Mystery” of Gentile inclusion (16:25)
“Mystery” of how Gentiles are included (11:25)
phaneroō
apokaluptō
The objective is the “obedience of faith” among all nations (16:26)
The objective is the “obedience of faith” among all nations (1:5; 15:18; cf. moral righteousness in chs. 6–8)
To the only wise God be glory forever (16:27)
To God be glory forever (11:36), for his incomparable wisdom (11:33)
Paul’s frequent concern for God’s honor and name in this letter47 climaxes in a final praise to God48 for the wise way he has arranged history so that Gentiles as well as Jews may come to obey Israel’s God through faith in Jesus the Messiah. In this doxology, on some points more obviously than in 1:16–17, Paul ties together some of the main themes that bind this renowned letter together.
1. Gamble 1977 has persuaded most subsequent scholars (cf. also arguments in Fitzmyer 1993: 55–67; Lung-Kwong 1998: 24–35). On frequent migration to Rome, see e.g., Ramsay 1904: 376; Leon 1960: 238–40; Stambaugh 1988: 90–92; Dresken-Weiland 2003.
2. See e.g., Cicero Fam. 13; Kim 1972; more briefly, Stowers 1986: 153–65.
3. E.g., Dio Chrysostom Ep. 1. Mail service existed only for the government; other letters went with couriers or (more often) travelers (e.g., Cicero Fam. 1.7.1; 2.1.1; 3.1.2; 5.5.1; Pliny Ep. 2.12.7; Fronto Ad Amic. 2.2; Nicholson 1994; Richards 2004: 177–82).
4. Although a minority, female readers were known (e.g., Schmidt 2005), though she might delegate the reading proper to a scribe (Jewett 2007: 23). On public readings, see Shiell 2004: 102–36.
5. As with other bearers (Xenophon Cyr. 4.5.34). Travelers often supplemented letters with oral information (e.g., Cicero Fam. 1.6.1; 3.1.1; 9.2.1; 12.30.3; cf. Danker 1989: 109).
6. See Winter 2001: 202.
7. Although Corinth was a Roman colony, the citizens of which were Romans, Phoebe’s name is Greek; if she were a Roman citizen, Paul might have used one of her Roman names, as he uses his own.
8. The office of “deacon” is clearer in later texts (e.g., 1 Clem. 42.4–5; Did. 15.1; Ign. Eph. 2.1; Ign. Mag. 2.1; 6.1; 13.1; cf. possibly the feminine ministra in Pliny Ep. 10.96.8).
9. E.g., White 2003: 467. Prostatis could evoke the spiritual gift of leading (proistēmi) in 12:8, as it derives from that verb (cf. the cognate prostatēs, including in the LXX); but most often it designates simply patron. Patrons and hosts were not necessarily leaders (Lampe 2003b: 497; though cf. Lane 1998: 210), though in the plural leadership of the small house churches hosts (who would tend to have more means and education) probably often proved influential. For women patrons of house churches, see Osiek and MacDonald 2006: 194–220; many pagans found this heavy involvement of women objectionable (MacDonald 2003: 184; Cook 2002: 113–14, 166–67).
10. E.g., Hemelrijk 2004 (for cities); Winter 2001: 199–201; benefactresses in Forbis 1990; among synagogue patrons, White 1996–97: 1:81.
11. On Cenchrea, see e.g., Rothaus 2000: 64–83; Scranton, Shaw, and Ibrahim 1978.
12. E.g., P. Oxy. 114.16–18; 1296.9–19; Cicero Att. 6.3, end; Fronto Verum Imp. 2.6, end; Weima 1994: 39–42.
13. A name in 16:14; for Jews, see CPJ 3:9, §453; 3:175–76; CIJ 1:23, §26; 1:75, §108; 1:255, §324.
14. A Latin name does not guarantee Roman citizenship, but Roman citizens here would probably be addressed by Roman names. Half of Rome’s Jewish population had Latin names, whereas only six of the twenty-six persons Paul greets do (and some of these predominate among slaves and freedpersons, like “Julia”); fourteen have common slave names. Up to one-third of Paul’s associates have Latin names, vastly higher than average in the Greek east (Judge 1982: 13), but a high percentage of these are from Corinth.
15. Often noted, e.g., Scholer 1980; Venetz 2002; Pizzuto-Pomaco 2003. Note even many of the patristic opinions in Bray 1998: 368–72.
16. All the more noteworthy in that men probably outnumbered women in Rome (Stambaugh 1988: 89).
17. See Flory 1984; cf. Euripides El. 931–33; MacMullen 1980: 210.
18. Though husband-and-wife teams are well-known in business, possibly Aquila now supervised more of the business and Prisca more of the house church ministry.
19. Cf. Xenophon Anab. 7.4.7–10; Terence Andr. 676–77; Seneca Nat. 4. pref. 15; cf. Deissmann 1978: 117–18. One being beheaded would “lay down” the neck (Seneca the Elder Suas. 6.17; Seneca the Younger Nat. 2.59.7; Epictetus Disc. 1.1.18–25; cf. Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 22:10).
20. On Roman housing, see e.g., Juvenal Sat. 3.190–211; Packer 1967; Clarke 1991; Stambaugh 1988: 172–78; Wallace-Hadrill 2003: 7–10. Carcopino (1940: 23–24) calculates that Rome had “only one private house for every 26 blocks of apartment houses.”
21. E.g., John Chrysostom Hom. Rom. 31.2. The supposed contraction of the male “Junianus” here is nowhere attested in antiquity and is unlikely, since such contractions do not occur with Roman names (as this one is); see e.g., Cervin 1994; cf. Schulz 1987. The attempt to make Junia male (found even in some translations) seems a case of theological special pleading.
22. Burer and Wallace 2001; but cf. the detailed response by Bauckham 2002: 172–80.
23. Given the culture, we also cannot be certain as to the sphere of ministry; perhaps Andronicus and Junia each focused on ministry to their own gender (but cf. Acts 16:13–15; 18:26).
24. Cf. perhaps Phlm 23; figurative captivity in e.g., Pliny Ep. 2.8.2.
25. Alternatively, Bauckham (2002: 165–94) suggests that Junia was a Roman citizen follower from Jesus’s Galilean ministry, namely Joanna, who likely remarried after Chuza’s death (Luke 8:3). On Junia as an apostle, see also e.g., Bruce 1990: 262; Epp 2005.
26. Urbanus’s Latin name probably suggests that he had been named by a Roman citizen; on manumission he probably achieved citizenship.
27. For viewing another’s mother as one’s own, see e.g., 1 Tim 5:2; Pseudo-Callisthenes Alex. 2.20; Horsley 1987: §9, p. 34.
28. Alternatively, a Jerusalem tomb inscription might identify them (e.g., Lane 1974: 563), but the names are too common to be sure.
29. E.g., Ovid Metam. 2. 356–57, 430–31; 10.362, 525; Arrian Alex. 4.11.3; Plutarch Quaest. rom. 6, Mor. 265B; for further details, see Keener 2000c.
30. A letter’s reader might convey the writer’s kiss to another on behalf of the writer (Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.8.7; 5.33 [48]; 5.42 [57]).
31. A minority of scholars treat the paragraph as an interpolation, because it interrupts greetings; but textual evidence is against this proposal, and Paul’s letters are full of digressions. Paul may break up the greetings sections deliberately with this reminder; closing exhortations (e.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.16.2) and summaries were common toward a work’s conclusion. Some material could follow a closing summary (e.g., Isaeus Cleon. 48 with 49–51).
32. E.g., 3 Macc 7:11; Philo Spec. Laws 1.148, 192, 281; 4.91; further sources in Keener 1999: 342; hence “slave of the belly” in Maximus of Tyre Or. 25.6; Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 2.23.1; Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 1.7 (cf. also Sallust Bell. Cat. 2.8).
33. This may echo the saying behind Matt 10:16, which was probably in Q (cf. the abbreviated version in Luke 10:3).
34. Because snakes often bit feet (Aeschylus Suppl. 896–97; Sophocles Phil. 632; Ovid Metam. 11.775–76), stepping on one was a dangerous maneuver (Virgil Aen. 2.379–81; Diodorus Siculus 20.42.2; Sib. Or. 1.59–64).
35. Some find messianic hints even in the common Greek version of Gen 3:15 (Martin 1965; Collins 1997; Alexander 1997), but this seems unclear. In any case, the Targum so applied it (McNamara 1972: 121).
36. See e.g., Cicero Att. 5.9; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.12; 4.10; especially Weima 1994: 42–45.
37. Many Jews bore this Greek name, as here (see e.g., CPJ 3:179; CIJ 1:25, §32; 2:15, §749).
38. Traditional identifications of “Luke” are with the Gentile physician in Col 4:14 (cf. Col 4:11), whereas those named in Rom 16:21 are Jewish (as a Jewish name, e.g., CIJ 1:111, §155). The matter is discussed in greater detail in various commentaries on Romans and Acts, including my forthcoming commentary on Acts with Hendrickson.
39. For others’ help for the illiterate, e.g., P. Oxy. 269.17–18; 1636.45–46; P. Lond. 1164.h.30; for the wealthy, e.g., Cicero Att. 14.21; Fronto Eloq. 2; idem Ad Amic. 2.3; Ad M. Caes. 5.26; for degrees of literary freedom, cf. Richards 2004: 64–83.
40. Cf. e.g., various views in Koester 2005: 339–40; Winter 1994: 180–96; Gill 1989; Meggitt 1996.
41. Winter 1994: 185–87; Erastus was not a common name in Corinth (cf. Winter 1994: 180, 191–92). A city manager could even be a public slave, though often a temporary one merely for the duration of the activity.
42. Winter 1994: 182–83. Erastus apparently promised to pave a street (Winter 1994: 184).
43. See Keener 2006.
44. Some manuscripts of Romans ended with 14:23, probably (as we noted earlier) due to Marcion’s predilections; if Marcion omitted most of chs. 15–16 but retained the closing words, this might explain the tradition of this location preserved in some mss. See textual discussion in Metzger 1975: 533–36, 540.
45. With many, e.g., Marshall 1999: 183; Stuhlmacher 1994: 256; Grieb 2002: 146. Jewett (2007: 998), himself viewing it as inauthentic, opines that scholars are fairly evenly divided on the question. As Schlatter (1995: 278) observes, the letter probably did not end with the greeting to Quartus.
46. Conclusions often summarized elements of a work (e.g., Rhet. Alex. 36, 1443b.15–16; Aeschines Tim. 196; Cicero Fin. 5.32.95–96; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Thuc. 55; idem Dem. 32; Musonius Rufus 3, p. 42.23–29).
47. See especially this emphasis in Schreiner 1998: passim.
48. “Glory to God” was an appropriate praise, including at a work’s ending (4 Macc 18:23; Jude 25). On God alone as wise, see e.g., Sir 1:8. Although readers’ marks of agreement could be interpolated into texts (Maximus of Tyre Or. 16.3; 27.1), “amen” was a natural close to praises (3 Macc 7:33) and some books (Tob 14:15; 3 Bar. 17:4; 2 En. 68:7).