1

There are those who suggest that chapter 16 is a later addition to an originally shorter epistle to the Romans.

It strikes me that arguments against the originality of Romans 16 based upon what we do/don't know about the individuals mentioned therein are arguments that beg the question they are supposed to be answering; I also am unaware of any manuscript evidence for this theory (but please point out any if I've missed it!).

The end of chapter 15 is a somewhat fitting concluding thought though--should this be understood to be the conclusion?

That I may come unto you with joy by the will of God, and may with you be refreshed. Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. (Romans 15:32-33)

There follows the commendation of Phoebe, numerous greetings, some final counsel, and:

To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. (Romans 16:27)

Questions

  • What evidence suggests Romans 16:27 was the original ending?
  • Why do some claim that 16:27 is not the original ending?
3
  • 1
    I agree that "arguments against the originality of Romans 16 based upon what we do/don't know about the individuals mentioned therein are arguments that beg the question they are supposed to be answering". I think you have answered your own question. – Dottard Apr 14 at 1:30
  • Thanks @Dottard - what about evidence going the other direction - affirming the originality of chapter 16? – Hold To The Rod Apr 14 at 18:45
  • The acceptance of any part of the Bible into the canon of Scripture is a complex question but it mostly boils down to the early and continued acceptance by the early church PLUS its consistency with the rest of of scripture. (All pseudepigraphons are fairly easy to recognize.) By this standard, Rom 16 is canonical. – Dottard Apr 14 at 20:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.