성경 주석서

바울은 이제 이 길고 탁월한 서신을 마무리하고 있는데, 그것을 매우 깊은 애정을 담아 행한다. 이 서신의 본론에서 그가 매우 박식한 사람으로 나타나는 것처럼, 이 부수적인 부분들에서는 그가 매우 사랑이 넘치는 사람으로 나타난다. 그토록 많은 지식과 그토록 많은 사랑은 매우 보기 드문 조합이지만, (그것이 함께 존재하는 곳에서는) 매우 탁월하고 사랑스러운 조합이다. 천국이란 온전하게 된 지식과 사랑이 아니고 무엇이겠는가? 바울이 마치 결론을 맺는 듯이 말하면서도, 또다시 새롭게 붙잡고 이어가는 것을 얼마나 자주 보게 되는지 주목할 만하다. 앞 장을 마무리한 그 엄숙한 축복이 서신을 끝맺었으리라고 생각했을 법한데, 여기서 그는 다시 시작하며, 이 장에서 그 축복을 거듭한다(롬 16:20). "우리 주 예수 그리스도의 은혜가 너희에게 있을지어다, 아멘." 그런데도 그는 더 할 말이 남아 있다. 아니, 다시금 그 축복을 거듭하면서도(롬 16:24) 여전히 끝내지 못하니, 이는 그의 부드러운 사랑의 표현이다. 작별 인사를 대신하는 이 거듭된 축복들은, 바울이 헤어지기를 못내 아쉬워하고 있음을 말해 준다. 이제 이 마지막 장에서 우리는 다음을 살펴볼 수 있다. I. 한 친구를 로마의 그리스도인들에게 천거함과, 그들 가운데 여러 사람에 대한 그의 특별한 문안 인사(롬 16:1-16). II. 분쟁을 일으키는 자들을 조심하라는 경계(롬 16:17-20). III. 바울과 함께 있던 몇몇 사람들이 더한 문안 인사(롬 16:21-24). IV. 그는 하나님의 영광에 대한 엄숙한 송영으로 끝맺는다(롬 16:25-27).

이 서신은 여러 문안으로 끝난다. 이 장에 나오는 "이름들"은 주로 "헬라식" 이름이다. 그리고 지칭된 사람들은 아마도 그리스의 거주자였으나 상업 등의 목적을 위해 로마로 이주한 사람들이었을 것이다. 그들 가운데 일부는 사도가 고린도와 그리스의 다른 지역들에서 전파하는 동안 사도 자신의 사역 아래서 회심했을 가능성이 있다. 이 목록에 "베드로"의 이름이 나오지 않는다는 것은 주목할 만하다. 이것은 교황주의자들의 주장과 달리, 베드로가 당시 로마에 있었다고 바울에게 알려져 있지 않았다는 결정적 증거이다.

사도는 로마의 그리스도인들에게 겐그레아 교회의 여집사 뵈뵈를 추천한다(로마서 16:1, 로마서 16:2). 그는 아굴라와 브리스길라에게 문안하는데, 그들에 대해 매우 높이 평가한다. 또한 그들의 집에 있는 교회에도 문안한다(로마서 16:3-5). 로마에 있는 그리스도의 교회 구성원들이었던 여러 사람을 남녀 모두 이름으로 언급한다(로마서 16:6-16). 분쟁과 분열을 일으키는 자들을 조심하라고 경고하고, 그들에 대해 두려운 성격 묘사를 제시한다(로마서 16:17, 로마서 16:18). 로마 그리스도인들의 순종을 칭찬하고, 사탄을 완전히 이길 것을 약속한다(로마서 16:19, 로마서 16:20). 여러 사람이 문안을 보낸다(로마서 16:21-23). 그는 그들의 좋은 소원에 사도적 축복을 덧붙이고, 그들을 하나님께 맡기며, 복음 교리들의 자기 요약을 제시한다. 그리고 그리스도 예수를 통하여 오직 지혜로우신 하나님께 영광을 돌리는 것으로 끝맺는다(로마서 16:24-27).

INTRODUCTION TO Romans 16

This chapter contains a recommendation of a single person, herein mentioned; a list of the chief of the saints at Rome, who are saluted by name, and some with singular encomiums; a caution to beware of false teachers; various salutations of persons that were with the apostle sent to the church at Rome; and the whole is concluded with a doxology, or an ascription of glory to God. First, a commendation is given of a woman, by whom this long letter was sent, who is described by her name, Phebe; by her spiritual relation, a sister in Christ; by her office or character, a servant of the church at Cenchrea, Romans 16:1, who is recommended to the saints at Rome, to receive her into their communion, conversation, and affection, as became them, and to assist her in every thing she might need from them; which is enforced by this reason, because she had been a succourer of the apostle, and many others, Romans 16:2, and next follows a catalogue of the principal saints at Rome, to whom the apostle sends his Christian salutations; and among these stand, in the first place, Aquila and Priscilla, and the church in their house, Romans 16:3, who are described as greatly assisting to him in the cause of Christ, and as having a strong affection for him; which they showed by risking their lives on his account, for which he gives them thanks, as did all the churches: Secondly, Epaenetus is next saluted, as having a great interest in the apostle's affections, and as being one of the first converts in Achaia, Romans 16:5. Thirdly, a woman named Mary, who did her utmost to serve the apostle, and those that were with him, Romans 16:6. Fourthly, a couple of saints, Andronicus, and Junia, described by their relation to the apostle, his kinsmen; by their sufferings with him, fellow prisoners; by the fame and credit they were in among the Christians of the first rank, even the apostles; and by their early conversion, being converted before the apostle himself, Romans 16:7. Fifthly, next in the list is Amplias, who is saluted as in the Lord, and as beloved in him, Romans 16:8. Sixthly, two worthy men are joined together, Urban and Stachys; the one is saluted as an helper in Christ, and the other as beloved by the apostle, Romans 16:9. Seventhly, Apelles is next named, and commended as one approved in Christ. Eighthly, the family of Aristobulus is greeted, Romans 16:10. Ninthly, a kinsman of the apostle's, by name Herodion: and, Tenthly, the household of Narcissus, said to be in the Lord, Romans 16:11. Eleventhly, two excellent women are greeted, who had been indefatigable in the service of Christ: and, Twelfthly, another woman, by name Persis, a person to be respected and loved, on account of her labour in the Lord, Romans 16:12. Thirteenthly, Rufus is saluted as one chosen in Christ, and also his mother, and who was the mother of the apostle, Romans 16:13. Fourteenthly, five of the saints are joined together, who are mentioned by name, and other brethren with them, whose names are not set down, Romans 16:14, and, Lastly, five other saints, with all the brethren with them, are likewise saluted, Romans 16:15, and these, and all the members of the church, are exhorted to salute one another in an affectionate and chaste manner, who are told that all the churches saluted them, Romans 16:16, then follows the exhortation to take care of false teachers, to mark them, and avoid them; who are described as schismatics and heretics, making divisions in the church, and preaching contrary to the Gospel taught and learned, Romans 16:17. The arguments or reasons made use of to enforce the exhortation, are taken partly from the characters of these teachers, being selfish men, who served not the Lord Jesus, but their own bellies; and deceivers, who by smooth words and plausible doctrines imposed upon simple minds, Romans 16:18, and partly from the characters of the saints at Rome, who were simple and credulous, and ready to give in to everything that carried an appearance of truth; and though they were to be commended for their ready obedience to the Gospel, yet it became them to mingle wisdom and prudence with their simplicity and readiness to receive what appeared to be truth, Romans 16:19, and from a promise of victory over Satan and his emissaries in a short time; to which the apostle annexes his usual salutation, and "Amen", as if he had concluded the epistle, Romans 16:20, but adds various salutations of persons that were with him, who desired to be remembered to the brethren at Rome, as Timotheus a fellow worker, Lucius, Jason and Sosipater, his kinsmen, Romans 16:21, Tertius the writer of the epistle, Romans 16:22, Gaius the host of the apostle, and of the whole church; Erastus, chamberlain of the city of Corinth, and Quartus a brother, Romans 16:23, and then the apostle repeats the above salutation, Romans 16:24, and yet still has not finished his epistle, but concludes with a doxology, Romans 16:25, in which is celebrated the power of God, in establishing his people according to the Gospel, commended by its being the preaching of Christ, and the revelation of the mystery hid from ages past; and the goodness of God is also taken notice of, in giving orders to make it manifest, and in making it manifest to the Gentiles, in order to bring them to the obedience of faith; and likewise the wisdom of God is observed, to whom wisdom alone belongs, and which is apparent in the Gospel before mentioned, and in all the methods of his grace, as well as providence; and glory to him, through Christ for ever, is wished and prayed for; and so ends this excellent and valuable epistle.

XVI.

It has been observed as strange that of all the Epistles of St. Paul, this to the Romans and that to Colossians, contain the greatest number of personal salutations, though these were precisely the two churches that he had never seen up to the date of his writing. A few critics, headed by Baur, have used this as an argument against the genuineness of the portion of the Epistles in question. But reasoning like this may safely be dismissed, as these very portions are just those which it would be most senseless and aimless to forge, even if it were possible on other grounds to think of them as a forgery.

On the other hand, there is some truth in the suggestion that the Apostle might think it invidious to single out individuals for special mention in the churches where he was known, while he would have no hesitation in naming those with whom he happened to be personally acquainted in churches where he was not known.

Besides this, it should be remembered that the Christians at Rome had been recently in a state of dispersion. All Jews by birth had been expelled from Rome by Claudius. It was this fact which had brought Aquila and Priscilla to Corinth and Ephesus, where St. Paul fell in with them, and he would naturally meet with other members of the dispersed church in the same way.

We are apt to underrate the amount of rapid circulation which went on in these early Christian communities. We know from Pagan writers that there was a great tendency all along the shores of the Mediterranean to gravitate towards Rome, and the population thus formed would naturally be a shifting and changing one, loosely attached to their temporary dwelling-place, and with many ties elsewhere. It will be noticed how many of the persons mentioned in the list had some prior connection with St. Paul, quite apart from their relation to the church at Rome. Andronicus, Junias, and Herodion, are described as his “kinsmen.” Aquila and Priscilla, and we may add, almost with certainty, Epænetus, he had met in Asia. Of Amplias, Urban, Stachys, Persis, and Rufus, he speaks as if with personal knowledge. If the Received reading were correct (“us” for “you”), Mary would have to be added to this list, and possibly also Apelles.

Analysing these lists of names from another point of view, two further general conclusions appear to be borne out. (1) The church at Rome did not consist to any great extent of native Romans. The only strictly Latin names are Amplias (for Ampliatus), and Urbanus. Julia, in Romans 16:15, merely marks a dependant upon the court. Aquila and Priscilla, Andronicus and Junia (or Junias), Herodion, and probably Rufus, appear to be Jews. The name Apelles, though not confined to Jews, was proverbially common among them. Aristobulus may be the Herodian prince of that name; in which case his household would be likely to be in great part Jews. The rest of the names are Greek. And this would tally with the fact that from the first there seems to have been a large Greek element in the church at Rome, so much so, that out of the twelve first bishops, only three seem to have borne Roman names, while the literature of the church, until some way into the third century, was Greek. (2) The names seem to belong in the main to the middle and lower classes of society. Many are such as are usually assigned to slaves or freed-men. Some are especially frequent in inscriptions relating to the imperial household; and this, taken in connection with the mention of “Cæsar’s household” in Philippians 4:22, may lead to the inference that Christianity had at this early date established itself in the palace of the emperor, though only among the lower order of servants.

CHAPTER 16.

On this chapter see introduction. It consists of five distinct parts: (1) The recommendation of Phœbe to the Church, Romans 16:1-2; (2) a series of greetings from Paul himself, Romans 16:3-16; (3) a warning against false teachers, Romans 16:17-20; (4) a series of greetings from companions of Paul, Romans 16:21-23; (5) a doxology.

CHAPTER 16

Romans 16:3. Πρίσκαν] Elz.: Πρίσκιλλαν, against decisive evidence. After Acts 18:2; 1 Corinthians 16:19 (Elz.).

Romans 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 1 Corinthians 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.

Romans 16:6. ὕμᾶς] approved by Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, according to A B C* א* 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 ὑμᾱ͂ς 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).

Romans 16:7. οἳ … γέγον.] D E F G: τοῖς πρὸ ἐμοῦ. Gloss, following on a mistaken reference of the relative to ἀποστόλοις.

Romans 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 א, min. VSS. Ruf.

Romans 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.

Romans 16:18. καὶ εὐλογίας] is wanting in D E F G, min. It. Omitted through the homoeoteleuton.

Romans 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 א*, min. Dam. Ruf. read. Rightly: the sequence of the words in the Recepta (χαίρω οὖν first) is the ordinary one.

After Romans 16:20, ἀμήν in Elz. is condemned by decisive testimony.

Romans 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.

Romans 16:24 is wanting entirely in A B C א, 5, 137, Copt. Aeth. Vulg. ms. Harl.* Ruf.; it is found after Romans 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, Romans 16:20, which, after the transference of Romans 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 Romans 16:25-27 in the ordinary place, either merely in this place (as B C א, 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 Romans 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, Romans 16:25-27. This is found (1) at the end of chap. 16., in B C D* E א, 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 Romans 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 Romans 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 Romans 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 Romans 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 Romans 15:1-13 would have been included in the reading, and the doxology must thus have obtained its place after Romans 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 Judges 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 Romans 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 Romans 14:23, where there is the last direct mention of the weak, while Romans 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 Romans 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 Romans 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 Romans 16:25-27 came to be appended thereto by other copyists. But apart from the above opinion respecting Romans 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 Romans 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 Romans 14:23 as interrupting the connection, and after Romans 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 Ephesians 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.”