L A R R Y W . HURTADO
THE doxology at the end of Romans (16 : 25-7) is a familiar problem in the textual history of the letter. Is the passage from Paul or someone else ? Was it written originally to close the I 6- chapter form of Romans, or possibly a 14- or 15-chapter form of the epistle? The larger and associated discussion of the textual history of Romans 15-16 involves a mass of data, and over the years several different scholarly theories have been proposed;
but there is neither space nor need to recount this discussion here.1 Rather, it is my intent to focus attention on the doxology itselfin the context of the most recent scholarly discussions of the textual history of Romans, especially the work of H. Gamble.2 It is my thesis that, in spite of the confidence with which some scholars assert their opinions on the subject, the question of the origin of the doxology remains open. The unsettled nature of the question can be illustrated easily by looking at recent literature on Romans. Since the older literature is well known, and since important studies discussing the doxology have ap- peared in the last few years, in what follows we shall first survey important publications that have appeared from 1970 to the present in order to illustrate contemporary scholarly opinions about the passage.
In spite of the major investigation by E. Kamlah3 in 1955, the more recent literature dealing with the doxology shows con- tinuing disagreement about the origin of the passage.
M. Black, for example, inclines to the view that the Roman
I See the standard introductions, e.g. W. G. Kiimmel, Introduction to t/z.e .New Testumenf (Nashville/New York: Abingdon, x975), 3oyzo; D. Guthrie, New Testa- mint Introduction (3rd edn.; Downs Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 1g7o), 393-420.
2 H. Gamble, Jr., 7% T&ual History of the Letter to the I&mans (SD 42; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977). This is a revised version of the author’s 1970 Yale Ph.D. dissertation.
3 E. Kamlah, ‘Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur SchluOdoxologie
des Riimerbriefes’ (Dissertation, Tiibingen University, 1955).
186 L A R R Y W . HURTADO
letter ended originally at 16 : 23, that Marcion cut off chaps.
I 5-16, and that, under the influence of Marcionite MSS, and/or for other reasons, 14w and r s-chapter forms of Romans cir- culated in the early church. The doxology Black sees as ‘of later literary vintage than the original letter to the Romans’, and the present form of the doxology as the result of an un- specified editorial process.4
C. E. B. Cranfield also credits Marcion with originating a 14- chapter form of Romans, and, though Cranfield is aware of opinion in favour of the authenticity of the doxology, he believes the passage was composed to ‘round off’ Romans 14, either among Marcion’s followers or in those orthodox circles where a 1 echapter text-form was used.5
This certainty that the doxology was an addition to a 14- chapter form of Romans and the possibility that the doxology originated in Marcionite circles is affirmed also by both W. G.
Ki..immeV and K. P. Donfried in recent publications.
W. Schmithals, however, in addition to insisting that the present form of Romans is a compilation of Pauline writings, argues that the doxology was composed in church circles for the present r6-chapter form of Romans, in connection with the circulation of an early collection of Paul’s letters. Romans closed this early collection, Schmithals believes, and the doxology was intended as a conclusion, not only for Romans, but for the whole collection.8 In his idea that the doxology reflects a process of collecting Paul’s letters, Schmithals is not alone. In his 1973 commentary on Romans, E. Kiisemann, too, sees the doxology 4 M. Black, Romanr (NCB; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, rg73), 26-g, x84-5*
s C. E. B. Cranfield, ?% Epistle to the Roman-s (ICC; 2 ~01s.; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1975-79)) I .8.
6 Kiimmel, Introduction, 317.
7 K. P. Donfried, ‘A Short Note on Romans 16’, JBL 8g (IgTo), 41-g; re- printed in The Remans Debate (ed. K. P. Donfried; Minneapolis: Augsburg, rg77), 40-60. The latter reprint version was used in this study.
s W. Schmithals, ‘On the Composition and Earliest Collection of the Major Epistles of Paul’, Paul und th Gnostics (Nashville: Abingdon, x972). (This essay appeared originally in <NW 5 I [ 19601, 225-45, and a revised form appeared in Pa&s und die Gnostiker: Untersuchungen zu den kleinen Paulusbtifen [TF 35 ; Hamburg- Bergstedt: Reich, 19651, 175-200.) See also Der R&w-brief als historisches Problem (Gtitersloh: Mohn, rg75), esp. pp. 108-24. For a critique of Schmithals and other theories about an early Pauline corpus, see Harry Gamble, Jr., ‘The Redaction
;i3t;8Pauline Letters and the Formation of the Pauline Corpus’, JBL 94 (1g75),
.
The Doxology at the End of Romans 187 as secondary, having been composed in church circles around the beginning of the second century ; and he thinks that it originated to conclude a r6-chapter form of Romans.9
Schmithals and Kasemann, then, differ from the preceding scholars in their views about the integrity of Romans and, what is important for the focus of this paper, in their view that though the doxology does not come from Paul, its original position was after Rom. 16 : 23. But the range of scholarly opinion reflected in current literature on Romans is even greater.
In the 1972 edition of his commentary, H. W. Schmidt con- tinued to insist that the doxology is thoroughly Pauline in content, and Schmidt held that its original position was after 16 : 23.10 Were it not for the lack of uniformity in the textual tradition about the place of the doxology, no one, Schmidt insisted, would question that the verses belong to R0mans.i’
Schmidt’s work was cited with approval by Paul Minear, and, though he did not himself try to defend the authenticity of the doxology and its original position after I 6 : 23, Minear indicated that he inclined toward this view.12
The most recent major commentary on Romans, by H.
Schlier, reflects the view that the doxology did not originate with Paul ; but Schlier shows some hesitation.13 His main reason for treating the doxology as a secondary addition is its uncertain position in the textual tradition.i4 Although he views the content and style of the doxology as unpauline, reflecting liturgical language, and though he favours the view that the passage was added by the early church to fit Romans for liturgical use, he recognizes that Paul could have adopted liturgical language of early church tradition to close his own letter.15
I have reviewed these recent publications to show that, though many NT scholars see the doxology as not coming from Paul, the debate about the origin of the passage goes on. The unsettled nature of the question is reflected in the treatment of 9 E. Kisemann, An die R&n.er (HNT 8a; Ttibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], Ig73), 401-7; Eng. tr., Commentary on Romans (tr. G. W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, r 980)) 42 1-8.
10 H. W. Schmidt, Der Brief des Paulus an die R&w (Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, rg72), 265-6. 11 Ibid., 266.
12 S. Minear, ‘2-h Obedience of Faith: The Purposes of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (SBT 2119; London: SCM, rg7r), 30-1, 35 n. 18.
13 H. Schlier, Der R6merbrief (Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, rg77), 45x-5.
14 Ibid., 451. 15 Ibid., 452.
188 LARRY W. HURTADO
the doxology in the UBSGNT textual commentary edited Professor Metzger. 16 With this review of present opinion_ ^1
bYin view, we shall look next at the recent and important study
of
the textual history of Romans by H. Gamble to examine his attempt at resolving the question.II
In light of the disagreement and uncertainty reflected above, the publication of Gamble’s monograph on the textual history of Romans is a timely event.17 The main intentions in his study are to defend the originality of Romans 1-16 and to explain the origin of shorter forms of the book in the early church. Em- ploying evidence of a text-critical nature and considerations based on studies of Hellenistic letters in general and Pauline letters in particular, Gamble succeeds, I believe, in these main intentions.
Gamble shows convincingly that Romans 16 formed the end of Paul’s letter to Rome ; and, building on the work of N. A.
Dahl (his dissertation supervisor), he links the shorter form(s) of Romans to early interest in reproducing ‘catholicized’
forms of some of Paul’s letters (rejecting the idea that Marcion shortened the letter) .I*
On these major positions taken in Gamble’s study, I find myself largely in agreement, but, since I am concerned here with the doxology specifically, I shall not devote space to a fuller presenta- tion of Gamble’s defence of these positions. Instead, I wish to examine Gamble’s views about the origin of the doxology, for on this subject I find his treatment less persuasive. The thorough- ness and recent date of Gamble’s work do, however, justify using it as the major ‘discussion partner’ in the following pages.
Before registering any reservations about his work, it must be noted that Gamble effectively refutes two commonly held views about the doxology. First, he shows that the doxology is not Marcionite.19 Drawing upon the work of N. A. Dahl, D.
Ltihrmann, and E. Kamlah, Gamble shows that the content of
‘6 B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New fistument (London/
New York: United Bible Societies, x971), 533-6, 540.
17 See note 2 above.
Is Ibid., I I 5-26. See also Nils A. Dahl, ‘The Particularity of the Pauline Epistles as a Problem in the Ancient Church’, JVeotestamentica et Patristica: Eine Freundesgabe
. Oscar Cullmann (NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill, I g62), 261-7 I.
’ ‘I9 See Gamble, Textual History, 107-1 I, for the discussion of the Marcionite origin theory and for references to the literature,
The Doxology at the End of Romans ‘89 the doxology is characteristic of early Christian preaching, and concludes that ‘nothing in the doxology is suggestive of an origin in Marcionite circles’ .20 Though I cannot share Gamble’s confidence in his view that the doxology comes from post- Pauline ecclesiastical circles, Gamble’s insistence that the doxo- logy reflects aspects of early Christian teaching and Pauline theology is quite proper.
Secondly, Gamble rejects the idea that the doxology was com- posed to conclude an early collection of Paul’s letters.21 Though the doxology reflects general Pauline proclamation, the phrasing of the passage shows that whoever composed it did so with special attention to the contents and phrasing of Romans, designing the doxology as a conclusion for that letter alone.
Having refuted these two theories about the origin of the doxology, Gamble then defends the thesis that the passage originated in early ecclesiastical circles to conclude the 14- chapter form of Romans.22 As noted above, this is not a new view, but its presentation in connection with convincing argu- ments for the integrity of the 16-chapter form of Romans calls for a careful examination.
Gamble’s major arguments against the Pauline origin of the doxology are three: (I) it is not Pauline epistolary style to conclude with a doxology ; (2) the phrasing of the doxology is liturgical and more like the ‘deutero-Paulines’ (Ephesians, the Pastoral Epistles) than like Paul ; (3) most importantly, the text-critical data suggest an origin with a rq.-chapter form of Romans. While there is merit in these arguments, and we must be grateful to Gamble for a convenient presentation of them, they by no means settle the issue of the origin of the doxology.
My purpose is not to provide a full defence of a particular view, such as the Pauline authorship of the doxology. Rather, in debating with Gamble, I hope to show the inadequacy of his own case and thereby wish to demonstrate that the question of the origin of the doxology remains open.
Let us consider the argument from Paul’s epistolary style. It is certainly true that Paul does customarily end his letters with
20 2-&uuz History, I I I.
21 See ibid., 121-3, for Gamble’s discussion of this idea and for references to the important literature.
22 Ibid., x23-4, 130-2.
190 L A R R Y W . HURTADO ’
a ‘grace benediction’,23 and’ a doxology at the end of Romans would be an exception to this practice. Nevertheless, without minimizing the importance of such observations, we must note some weaknesses in the argument. First, Romans with the doxology for a conclusion would luzt be the onZ~ exeeption to Pauline custom. I Car, 16: 24 (a concluding love wish) is technically an exception, as Gamble admits.24 His plea that this verse is ‘not a formal element, but only an ad hoc addition which is best regarded as a postscript’,25 is not impressive, for the doxology too can be understood as a Pauline postscript following the greetings of Rom. 16: 21-3. Indeed, Rom. 16: 21-7 as a whole can be read as a kind of postscript. The regular Pauline letter closing, the grace benediction, appears in I 6 : 20, and the greetings of 16 : 2 1-3, separated as they are from the greetings of 16 : 3-16, seem out of regular sequence.
Secondly, and with I Cor. 16 : 24 in mind, it seems unwarranted to insist that Paul was incapable of writing a letter that did not conform with his usual practice. As another example, we may note that Galatians does not have Paul’s usual ‘thanksgiving’
in the opening section. It is plain that there is a customary Pauline letter form, but neither the evidence nor logic demands the idea that Paul was a slave to this form?
Thirdly, no matter how one decides that Romans I 6 should end, one has an exception to Pauline custom ! For example, if Romans ended originally at 16 : 23, the usual Pauline custom of ending with a ‘grace benediction’ is broken. Even Gamble’s defence of the repetition of the ‘grace benediction’ at 16 : 20 and 16 : 24 as the authentic ending of the letter presents ys with an exception to Pauline custom, for it would be the only example of a re- peated grace benediction in the Pauline corpus.27 It should be clear then, in spite of the importance that Gamble attaches to the matter, that the argument against the authenticity of the doxology on the grounds of Pauline letter custom is not by itself compelling, though it might count for something if combined with other, stronger arguments.
23 Textual History, 65-7, 82-3. 24 Ibid., 67 n. 56; 82. 2s Ibid., 82.
26 See the summary of work done in the Seminar on Pauline Epistolography of the Society of Biblical Literature: James D. Hester, ‘Epistolography in Antiquity and Early Christianity’ (unpublished paper available from the author at the Jame- son Center for the Study of Religion and Ethics, University of Redlands, Redlands,
Calif.), 6. 27 Cf. Gamble, Textual History 129-32.
The Doxology at the End of Remans 19’
With this in mind, we must now examine the argument against the doxology based on its ‘liturgical’ and ‘unPauline’
style. First, it must be noted that the apparent similarities between the doxology and the ‘deutero-Paulines’ (Eph. 3 : 4-7,8-I I ; cf. 2 Tim. I : g-1 I ; Tit. I : 2-3) can be used against the authenticity of the doxology only if one can be certain that all these letters in no way come from Paul.28 In view of the con- tinuing disagreement about the authorship of Ephesians, for example, the argument against the doxology based on its simi- larities to the disputed letters of the Pauline Corpus remains an attempt to support one unproven hypothesis by means of another.
Secondly, though the language of the doxology is lofty and traditional-sounding, such language is not impossible for Paul.
I Cor. 16 : 22 shows elements of early liturgical tradition adopted for Paul’s epistolary purpose. Rom. I I : 33-6 is further evidence that Paul used liturgical and formal language in his letters.
It seems perilous, therefore, to presume because of its phrasing that Paul could not have written the doxology, for, just as his epistolary style shows variations, so does his language.29
Thirdly, Gamble’s use of the argument against the doxology based on its similarities with disputed Pauline letters, seems to be undercut both by his own demonstration that the doxology was written with ‘special attention’ to Romans and by his acknowledgement that ‘the doxology discloses no similar con- nections with other individual letters or with the letters as a collection’.30 He shows that the ‘revelation-scheme formula’
does not betray literary dependence, but is reflective merely of a widely-used pattern in early Christian preaching,31 surely a pattern known in some form to Paul also.
We are left finally with the text-critical argument that is based on the varied position that the doxology occupies in the MS tradition. The inadequacy of the preceding arguments 28 Cf. e.g. Kiimmel, 357-63, for the discussion of Ephesians and for references to scholars who support the authenticity of Ephesians.
29 P. S. Minear, Obedience, 35 n. 16, criticizes use of the assumption that in six or seven letters we have a complete index of Paul’s vocabulary. ‘It forgets how often he used words lifted from the vocabulary of his readers. It gives priority to verbal sounds rather than to thought sequences. Paul was far more flexible in his speech patterns than are most Pauline scholars’. On liturgical and traditional elements in Pauline writings, see e.g. L. G. Champion, Benedictions and Doxologies in the Epistles of Paul (Oxford: Kemp Hall, I 934).
30 Gamble, Textual History, 122-3. 31 Ibid., I&-rr.
192 ‘ L A R R Y W . HURiAbO
against the authenticity of the doxology, ind th
eimportance of the text-critical data are mmgs&ed
e calls his examination of these data ‘the de&h? argu&t+&r 2s[the doxology’s] non-Pauline origin’.~~ Though it is* @WV that the text-critical data are the mostimportant, the deci&e&ess of Gamble’s handling *of the data is open to quest&~ J;
’Gamble’s presentation of this ‘decisive argument’ &tit&ted mainly to a few sentences and is weakened by his undefknded assertions and occasional specious interpretations of I&&
*data.33For example, he asserti that ‘ifthe doxology were origUIy at the end of ch.
I6, there would be no reasons by which t&account for its transposition to the end of ch.
14 and the wide&optionof this placement in the tradition’.3=+ Though Gamble, himself can see no such reasons, they are nonetheless not difficult to perceive. The only really difficult thing to imagine is why 14: 23 was chosen as the cut-off point in preparing a Lcatholicized’
form of Romans (a matter on which Gamble sheds no light) ;35 but, once the cut was made, it is clear that a fitting conclusion to this form of the letter soon would have seemed de&able, and it is easy to imagine that editors might supply one most easily from the materials that might have originally ended the
16- chapter form of the letter. Accordingly, the doxology could have been appended at 14: 23 quite naturally, if it were alreadyin the minds of editors as the familiar ending of the letter. One can easily see the possibility that the doxology originated as a non-Pauline conclusion to a shortened form of Remans
; on theother hand, it is equally possible that the doxology ww simply retained as a fitting conclusion when the letter was shortened.
The latter possibility requires far less creativity of the editors (who clumsily chopped the letter at 14: 23!), and, though Gamble is unaware of reasons for this possibility, it must be considered seriously.
The wide support for the doxology after ch. 14 among Byzan- tine-text MSS (mentioned by Gamble in support of his view that the doxology originated as a conclusion to a r4-chapter edition) shows only the popularity of the doxology in that position in many ecclesiastical (and perhaps liturgical) circles. Perhaps also these MSS show the influence of an early shortened form of
32 Textual History, 107. 33 Ibid., 123-4 and 129-32.
34 Ibid., 123. 35 Ibid., IIS.
The Doxology at the End of Remans I93
Romans with the doxology as a conclusion.36 The Byzantine witnesses with the doxology after both ch. 14 and ch.
I6 display the familiar Byzantine tendency toward conflation,37 in this case a conflation of one textual tradition having the doxology at the end of ch. 14 with another tradition having the doxology at the end of ch, 16. The Byzantine witnesses do not, however, furnish evidence about the
originof the doxology, or the priom’ty of either the one or the other position for the doxology
(contraGamble).38 Further, one may seriously question the validity of Gamble’s assertion that an original position of the doxology after ch. 14 is supported by the fact that the final phrase ~1.s
TO& al&asis lengthened to rk ~03s at&as r&v al&~ in some witnesses that have the doxology at the end of ch. 16. Gamble thus argues that the lengthening of the phrase could be explained only in connection with a moving of the doxology from an original position after ch. 14 to the end of ch.
I6
;but such an explanation is neither necessary nor warranted.39 The lengthening of the phrase in some textual witnesses, when the doxology appears at the end of Romans 16, shows nothing more than a preference among some scribes for the longer, more sonorous phrase to conclude the letter.
What is more, the evidence is not quite accurately presented by Gamble. He writes, ‘MSS which offer the doxology in both places attest the short phrase in the early position and the long phrase in the later position‘.40 It should be noted, however, that some MSS with the doxology in both positions have the short phrase in both places (e.g. 33 104). Further, he neglects to note that the most important witnesses for the doxology at 16 : 25-7 (e.g. B G 1739) have the short phrase, and this means that the shorter or longer phrase is a textual variation somewhat un- related to the question of the origin and movement of the doxology. This is confirmed by the fact that the same variants appear elsewhere in NT epistles where there is no question of textual dislocation. Note the following data.41
36
e.g. L Y o2og 181 326 and most minuscules.37 e.g. in A P 5 33. The classic description of the conflation tendency in Byzan- tine witnesses is B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The .New Testament in the Original Greek: [II] Introduction, Appendix (Cambridge/London: Macmillan, 1882), 93-107,
132-S.
38 Cf. Gamble, Textual History, 123. 39 Ibid., 123-4. 4O Ibid., 124.
41 I thank Professor G. D. Fee for drawing these data to my attention.