Problem: Critical scholars hold that chapter 16 of Romans is a later interpolation on chapters 1-15. They make several observations:
Cyprian argues against heretics in his Book of Testimonies (AD 258). However, he doesn’t cite Romans 16:17 (“keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them”).
Tertullian wrote five books called Against Marcion, but he never cites from Romans 15-16. Remember, Marcion was an anti-Semitic heretic, who was trying to divorce the NT from the OT. Romans 15-16 has so many OT citations that it only seems plausible that Tertullian would cite from these chapters—especially since Romans was one of Marcion’s canonical books.
The Byzantine text eliminates chapters 15 and 16 altogether. Romans jumps from 14:23 to 16:25-27.[1]
Does this imply that Romans 16 was not in the original text?
Solution: Not at all. Several arguments can be raised:
First, we do not have any textual evidence that deletes chapter 16. Thomas Schreiner writes, “No extant textual evidence exists for the detachment of Rom. 16 from chapter 15.”[2] The only evidence that comes close is P46 which places “the doxology… between chapters 15 and 16.”[3] However, we do not have a manuscript that eliminates chapter 16.
Second, we have a good historical reason for why Romans may have circulated without chapters 15 and 16 in the early church. Marcion may have removed Romans 15 and 16 from his text. This would explain why Tertullian never cites these chapters, because Marcion didn’t consider them Scripture. Rufinus (AD 400) wrote a Latin version of Origen’s commentary on Romans. In his translation, Rufinus notes, “Marcion, who introduced alterations into the evangelic and apostolic writings, removed this section completely from this letter, and not only so, but he cut out everything from that place where it is written, ‘whatever does not proceed from faith is sin’ (14:23), right to the end.”[4]
Third, the argument of chapter 14 flows directly into chapter 15. That is, it would not make sense to end the letter at 14:23, because chapter 15 builds on this contextually.
Fourth, chapter 16 makes sense in light of the first-century culture. Paul mentions over a dozen people by name in chapter 16. Thomas Schreiner notes, “The function of such greetings also makes better sense if addressed to Rome. By greeting respected persons in the churches Paul indirectly commends his ministry to the Romans. The validity of the gospel is attested by well-known persons in Rome.”[5]
[1] Bruce, F. F. (1985). Romans: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 6, p. 34). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
[2] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 8.
[3] Bruce, F. F. (1985). Romans: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 6, p. 35). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
[4] Bruce, F. F. (1985). Romans: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 6, p. 34). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
[5] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 9.
