Walker-Rom 1.18-2.29 as Interpolation

8/8/2019 Walker-Rom 1.18-2.29 as Interpolation

1/20

New Test. Stud. vol. 45, 1999, pp. 533552 Copyright 1999 Cambridge University Press

Printed in the United Kingdom

ROMANS1.182.29: A NON-PAULINE INTERPOLATION?

WILLIAM O. WALKER, JR

Trinity University, San Antonio, TX 782127200, USA

Considerations of language, context, and ideational content suggest thatRom 1.182.29 is a non-Pauline interpolation: (1) the language of 1.1832and, to a lesser extent, that of chap. 2 is not typically Pauline; (2) it isdifficult to relate Rom 1.182.29 convincingly to Rom 1.117, and its rela-tion to chap. 3 is at best strained; and (3) much of the ideational content of

chap. 2 and, to a somewhat lesser extent, that of 1.1832 is non-Pauline andeven anti-Pauline. In addition, it is possible that the text of Romans used byMarcion did not contain 1.192.1.

INTRODUCTION

More than two decades ago, J. C. ONeill argued that Rom1.182.29 is a non-Pauline interpolation.1 Because he finds numer-ous glosses and interpolations in both Romans and Galatians,2

however, his views have not been well received by most scholars.Indeed, Victor Paul Furnish asserts that ONeills conclusions re-flect highly subjective judgments about content and tone . . . inter-

1 J. C. ONeill, Pauls Letter to the Romans (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1975) 4056. Non-Pauline interpolation means that the material was both composed and inserted into the Romanletter by someone other than Paul (the author and the interpolator, however, may or may nothave been the same person).

Other scholars who have regarded Rom 1.182.29, either in whole or in part, as a non-Pauline

interpolation include: A. F. Loisy (The Origins of the New Testament [New Hyde Park, NY:University Books, 1972; Fr. original, 1936] 250; The Birth of the Christian Religion [New HydePark, NY: UniversityBooks, 1962; Fr. original, 1933] 363 n. 21); R. M. Hawkins (The Recovery ofthe Historical Paul [Nashville: Vanderbilt University, 1943] 7986); P. N. Harrison (Paulinesand Pastorals [London: Villiers, 1964] 81); and, more recently, W. Munroe ( Authority in Pauland Peter. The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter [SNTSMS45; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1983] 113).

2 On Galatians, see J. C. ONeill, The Recovery of Pauls Letter to the Galatians (London:SPCK, 1972); see also A. F. Loisy, Remarques sur la litterature epistolaire du Nouveau Testa-ment (Paris: Nourry, 1935)passim; P.-L. Couchoud, Reconstitution et classement des lettres deSaint Paul, RHP 87 (1923) 831; idem, La premiere edition de Saint Paul, RHR 94 (1926)24263; and Hawkins, The Recovery of the Historical Paul, 1420, 2912, and passim.


2/20

mixed with often-questionable generalizations about the apostlesstyle and vocabulary, resulting in a Paul created in the inter-preters own image.3 More peremptorily, Joseph A. Fitzmyer de-clares that short shrift . . . has to be given to the proposals ofONeill.4 One reviewer of ONeills book on Romans observes, how-ever: Scholars will find this a challenging and stimulating treat-ment of Romans, and may even decide that some of its argumentsfor Pauline and non-Pauline sections must be treated very serious-ly.5 It is my intention not only to treat very seriously ONeillsviews regarding Rom 1.182.29, but also to support and strengthenhis argument that the passage is a non-Pauline interpolation.

As Furnish notes, Hypotheses about textual glosses and thepresence of even longer interpolated units have long been a part oftextual and literary criticism.6 Indeed, there is now rather wide-

spread agreement that Pauls letters contain some non-Paulineglosses and interpolations.7 Debate continues, of course, regardingspecific passages, and the question of appropriate criteria for ident-ifying such additions to the text still awaits careful and systematicconsideration.8 Thus, in each case of proposed interpolation, it isnecessary to examine the data with care and to draw conclusionsonly with caution and on the basis of the cumulative weight of theevidence.9

In the case of Rom 1.182.29, the argument for interpolationinvolves considerations of language, context, and ideational con-tent; in addition, for 1.192.1 there is a consideration involvingtextual history.

3V. P. Furnish, Pauline Studies, The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. E. J.Epp and G. W. MacRae; Atlanta: Scholars, 1989) 325.

4 J. A. Fitzmyer,Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33; NewYork: Doubleday, 1992) 65, 270.

5 Talking Points from Books, ExpTim 86 (1975) 258.6 Furnish, Pauline Studies, 324.7 See, e.g., G. D. Fees reasoned argument against the authenticityof 1 Cor 14.3435 (The First

Epistle to the Corinthians [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987] 699708). Other suggested

interpolations include 1 Thess 2.1316 (or perhaps only v. 15 or vv. 14b16); 5.111; 1 Cor2.616; 11.316; 12.31b13.13; 14.33b36 (or, more likely, only vv. 345); 2 Cor 6.147.1; Rom3.246; 5.67; 13.17; 16.257.

8 For an interesting and suggestive approach, see W. Munro, Interpolation in the Epistles:Weighing Probability, NTS 36 (1990) 43143; see also her unpublished paper, Criteria forDetermining the Authenticity of Pauline Letters. A Modest Proposal (prepared for 45 March,1994, meeting of Paul Seminar of the Westar Institute), particularly the section on criteria forgenuineness of letter contents.

9 See, e.g., W. O. Walker, Jr, The Burden of Proof in Identifying Interpolations in the PaulineLetters, NTS 33 (1987) 61018. For the view that the burden of proof rests upon the argument

for authenticity, see D. J. Doughty, Pauline Paradigms and Pauline Authenticity, The Journalof Higher Criticism 1 (1994) 95128.

534 WILLIAM O. WALKER, JR


3/20

LANGUAGE

The language of Rom 1.1832 and, to a lesser extent, that of Rom 2,appears to be distinctively non-Pauline. Because of significantdifferences, however, between 1.1832 and chap. 2 so far as lan-

guage is concerned, the two sections will be examined separately.

The language of Rom 1.1832

Regarding Rom 1.1832, ONeill asserts that the language inwhich the argument is expressed is unlike Pauls usual language inboth vocabulary and style.10 The basic data regarding vocabularyare the following:11 the passage contains 109 different nouns, adjec-tives, and verbs;12 of these 109, fifteen (13.76 per cent) are found

nowhere else in the NT,13 ten (8.26 per cent) appear elsewhere inthe NT but not in the Pauline corpus,14 four (3.67 per cent) areshared only with pseudo-Pauline15 and other non-Pauline NT writ-ings,16 and five (4.59 per cent) are shared only with pseudo-Paulinewritings.17 In short, almost a third of the nouns, adjectives, andverbs in Rom 1.1832 a total of 34 words or 31.19 per cent appear nowhere else in the authentic Pauline letters18 (particular-ly noteworthy is the vocabulary beginning with the last two wordsof v. 29 and continuing through v. 31: here, twelve of the fifteen

10 ONeill, Pauls Letter to the Romans, 41.11 Many of these data are set forth by P. N. Harrison (Paulines and Pastorals, 823). At some

points, however, my numbers differ from his because, unlike him, I regard Ephesians, Co-lossians, and 2 Thessalonians as pseudo-Pauline.

12 Not included are articles, conjunctions, prepositions, demonstratives, personal pronouns,relative pronouns, reflexive pronouns, or the negative particle.

13 Jahoqa! x, heio! sg|, lasaio! olai, lesaka! rrx (2), reba! folai, vqgri| (2), e0jjai!olai, o3 qeni|, jajog! heia,wihtqirsg! |, jasa! kako|, heorstcg! |, e0uetqesg! |, a0 rt! mheso|, and a0 mekeg! lxm. In addition, a0 mapoko! cgso|appears elsewhere in the NT only at Rom 2.1, which, as part of the larger passage underconsideration, may well be non-Pauline.

14 Cmxrso! |,ai3dio|, ua! rjx, peseimo! |, sesqa! pot|, e/qpeso! m, utrijo! | (2), a0 rvglort! mg, jahg! jx, and uo! mo|.In addition, a0 sila! fx occurs elsewhere in the Pauline corpus only at Rom 2.23, which, as part ofthe larger passage under consideration, may well be non-Pauline.

15 I regard the Pastorals, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians as pseudo-Pauline.16 Wetdo|, t/ peqg! uamo|, a0 peihg! |, and a0 o! qaso| (the last occurs in Colossians, which Harrison

regards as Pauline).17 Moe! x, t/ bqirsg! |, a0 kafx! m, a3 rsoqco|, and poi!gla.18 Harrison counts 30 such words, and ONeill ( Pauls Letter to the Romans, 41), at least

twenty-nine (apparently ONeill, like Harrison, assumes that Ephesians and Colossians arePauline). Noting that the remainder of Romans contains only 231 words that appear nowhereelse in the authentic Pauline writings, Harrison ( Paulines and Pastorals, 823, where exactstatistics are given) concludes that Rom 1.1832 (one page in the WestcottHort text) containsmore than three times as many words which do not occur elsewhere in the Paulines as theremaining twenty-five pages of Romans have on the average (note: if Harrison also regardedEphesians and Colossians as pseudo-Pauline, the number 231 would be somewhat higher).

535ROMANS 1.182.29: A NON-PAULINE INTERPOLATION?


4/20

words are not otherwise attested in the authentic letters of Paul).In addition, Rom 1.1832 contains sixteen words that appear else-where in the authentic Pauline writings only once; of the sixteen,four occur only in quotations from the OT, two appear only in Gal3.28 (often regarded as a pre-Pauline baptismal formula), and twoare found only in Rom 2 which, as part of the larger passage underconsideration, may well be non-Pauline.19 Thus, at least 50 (45.87per cent) of the 109 nouns, adjectives, and verbs in Rom 1.1832appear not to represent typically Pauline vocabulary.20 Finally,it should be noted that o0 qcg' Heot (1.18) occurs elsewhere in theNT only in Ephesians (5.6), Colossians (3.6), and Revelation(19.15), and that cometrim a0 peihei| (1.30) appears elsewhere onlyin 2 Timothy (3.2). In my judgement, these data regarding vocabu-lary suggest that Pauline authorship of Rom 1.1832 is highly

unlikely.One might argue, of course, that the distinctive vocabulary of

Rom 1.1832 results from its distinctive subject matter. This argu-ment founders, however, on the fact that the vocabulary of thepassage is most distinctive at precisely the point where the subjectmatter is least distinctive: the vice list in 1.2931. The authenticPauline letters contain five other such lists,21 and a comparison ofthe vocabulary in these lists with that in Rom 1.2931 indicatesrelatively little overlap. Rom 1.2931 lists a total of 21 vices; of the21, however, only six (28.57 per cent) appear in one or more of theother lists.22Alternatively, the other five lists enumerate a total of28 vices; of the 28 however, only six (21.43 per cent) appear in Rom1.2931. At the same time, however, there is significantly moreoverlap among the other five lists: all of the six vices in 1 Cor

19 'Are!beia (Rom 11.26; cf. Isa 11.26), a0 mapoko! cgso| (Rom 2.1), rjosi!folai (Rom 11.10; cf. Ps68.24), a0 rt! meso| (Rom 10.19; cf. Deut 32.21), lxqai!mx (1 Cor 1.20; cf. Isa 19.11), a0 sila! fx (Rom2.23), jsi!fx (1 Cor 11.9), pa! ho| (1 Thess 4.5), hgkt| (Gal 3.28), a3 qrgm (Gal 3.28), a0 msilirhi!a (2 Cor6.13), pka! mg (1 Thess 2.3), a0 pokalba! mx (Gal 4.5), pomgqi!a (1 Cor 5.8), lerso! | (Rom 15.14), andcomei| (2 Cor 12.14).

20 In addition, Rom 1.1832 contains eight words that appear elsewhere in the undoubtedly

authentic Pauline letters only twice: a3 uhaqso| (1 Cor 9.25; 15.52), kasqet! x (Rom 1.9; Phil 3.3),pkeomeni!a (2 Cor 9.5; 1 Thess 2.5), jaji!a (1 Cor 5.8; 14.20), uho! mo| (Gal 5.21; Phil 1.15), do! ko| (2 Cor12.16; 1 Thess 2.3), a3 nio| (Rom 8.18; 1 Cor 16.4), and rtmetdoje!x (1 Cor 7.12, 13). These, too, mightwell be regarded as not typically Pauline.

21 Rom 13.13; 1 Cor 5.1011; 6.910; 2 Cor 12.201; and Gal 5.1921; in the pseudo-Paulinewritings, Eph 5.35; Col 3.58; 1 Tim 1.910; 6.45; 2 Tim 3.24; Tit 1.7; 3.3 (cf. also 1 Pet 2.1;4.3; 4.15).

22 One(e3qi|) appears in three lists (Rom 13.13; 2 Cor 12.20; Gal 5.20); one (pkeomeni!a) in two lists(pkeomeni!a in Rom 1.29 but pkeome! jsg| in 1 Cor 5.10; 6.10); and four (a0 diji!a, wihtqi!rsg|, jasa! kako|,and uho! mo|) in one list (a0 diji!a in Rom 1.29 but a0 dijo! | in 1 Cor 6.9; wihtqirsg! | in Rom 1.29 butwihtqirlo! | in 2 Cor 12.20; and jasa! kako| in Rom 1.30 but jasakaki!a in 2 Cor 12.20; uho! mo| in bothRom 1.29 and Gal 5.21).



5/20

5.1011 (100 per cent) appear in one or more of the other lists,23 asdo five of the six (83.33 per cent) in Rom 13.13,24 nine of the eleven(81.82 per cent) in 2 Cor 12.201,25 eleven of the fifteen (73.33 percent) in Gal 5.1921,26 and seven of the eleven (63.64 per cent) in 1Cor 6.910.27 In short, although the vocabularies of the other vicelists in the authentic Pauline letters exhibit a significant degree ofoverlap, the vocabulary of Rom 1.2931 is distinctively different.

It should also be noted that, of the 21 vices in Rom 1.2931, eight(38.1 per cent) also appear in the Pastoral Letters,28 seven of them(33.33 per cent) in vice lists29 and four of these (19.05 per cent) inthe same passage.30 Thus, the vocabulary of Rom 1.2931 is closerto that of the Pastoral vice lists than to that of the authenticallyPauline lists.

Significant, too, is the fact that some of the items included in the

other lists but not in Rom 1.2931 are vices that Paul elsewheresingles out for vigorous attack. For example, Rom 1.2931 does notinclude poqmei!a/po! qmo|. Elsewhere, however, Paul has a great dealto say about poqmei!a/poqmet! eim/po! qmg/po! qmo|,31 associating the termswith conduct that is prevalent among Gentiles but not to be toler-ated among the people of God (a concern closely related to that ofRom 1.1832). Similarly, Rom 1.2931 omits ei0dxkokasqi!a/ei0dx-koka! sqg|, about which Paul speaks elsewhere.32 Because poqmei!a/po! qmo| appears in four of the five other vice lists and ei0dxkokasqi!a/ei0dxkoka! sqg| in three of the five and both are the object of seriousconcern elsewhere in Pauls writings, it is difficult to understandwhy Paul would have omitted them from such a lengthy list as thatin Rom 1.2931!

In short, not only is the vocabulary of Rom 1.1832 distinctivelynon-Pauline, it is also most non-Pauline precisely at the pointwhere one would expect it to be most Pauline: in the vice list in1.2931.

In addition, Rom 1.1832 contains a number of stylistic features

23 Three in one other list, one in two other lists, and two in three other lists.

24 Two in one other list and three in two other lists.25 Five in one other list, two in two other lists, and two in three other lists.26 Five in one other list, three in two other lists, and three in three other lists.27 Three in one other list, two in two other lists, and two in three other lists.28 Jaji!a (Tit 3.3), uho! mo| (1 Tim 6.4; Tit 3.3), e3qi| (1 Tim 6.4; Tit 3.9), t/ bqirsg! | (1 Tim 1.13),

t/ peqg! uamo| (2 Tim 3.2), a0 kafx! m (2 Tim 3.2), cometrim a0 peihg! | (2 Tim 3.2), and a3 rsoqco| (2 Tim 3.3).29All except t/ bqirsg! |.30 2 Tim 3.23: t/ peqg! uamo|, a0 kafx! m, cometrim a0 peihg! |, and a3 rsoqco|.31 E.g. 1 Cor 5.113; 6.1220; 7.2; 10.8; 1 Thess 4.38.32 1 Cor 10.7, 1422; note the juxtaposition of ei0dxkokasqi!a and poqmei!a in 1 Cor 10.78. To be

sure, Rom 1.23, 25, earlier in the same passage, appears to have ei0dxkokasqi!a in mind; neverthe-less, it is surprising to find it missing from the vice list in 1.2931.



6/20

that appear not to be typically Pauline. As P. N. Harrison notes,the passage exhibits a fondness for words beginning with a-privative: by his count, Romans in its entirety contains only 48a-privative words, of which seventeen (35.42 per cent) are in thisone passage.33 In addition, Calvin L. Porter has called attention tocertain repetitive features suggesting that the passage is a speechconstructed for the ears, for hearing. These include the followingitems in 1.2231: (a) paqe!dxjem at0 sot' | o/ Heo! | appears three times(1.24, 26, 28); (b) a form of the verb a0 kka! rrx appears three times(1.23, 25, 26); (c) the dative-case ending -iy appears four times inthe same verse (1.29); and (d) there is an alliterative sequence offour words beginning with the negative alpha and ending with -ot|in the same verse (1.31). Further, Porter notes that the discourseas a whole is dominated by the repeated use of third person plural

verbs ending in -ram, -nam, or -rim;34

observing that no other sectionof Romans contains such a concentration, Porter suggests that inan oral presentation the endings of these Greek verbs would havebeen as striking as is the they in an English translation. Finally,Porter notes that the passage contains thirteen occurrences ofplural forms of the pronoun at0 so! | . . . and one instance of the pluralreflexive e/atsoi|.35 All of this, in Porters view, contributes to astrong and dominant they/them sense of the speech.36 Suchfeatures are not prominent, however, elsewhere in the Paulinewritings.

These linguistic data indicate that the language of Rom 1.1832is distinctively non-Pauline in character and, in my judgement,suggest that Paul was not the author of the passage. Such data arenot sufficient, of course, to demonstrate that someone other thanPaul added 1.1832 to the Roman letter, for it is possible that Paulincorporated an originally non-Pauline passage into his own letter,perhaps even adapting and revising it to suit his purposes. To showthat 1.1832 not only was composed by someone other than Paulbut also was added to the Roman letter by someone other than

Paul, it will be necessary to consider both the context and theideational content of the passage.

33 Harrison, Paulines and Pastorals, 83; cf. Hawkins, The Recovery of the Historical Paul, 80.34 Three in v. 21, one in v. 22, one in v. 23, three in v. 25, one in v. 26, one in v. 27, one in v. 28,

and two in v. 32.35 Some MSS have a second instance at 1.24.36 C. L. Porter, Romans 1.1832. Its Role in the Developing Argument,NTS 40 (1994) 21819.



7/20

The language of Rom 2

The language of Rom 2 is somewhat less striking than that of1.1832, but it too appears not to be typically Pauline. Chap. 2contains seven words that occur nowhere else in the NT,37 nine that

appear elsewhere in the NT but not in the Pauline corpus,38

onethat is shared only with pseudo-Pauline and other non-Pauline NTwritings,39 one that is shared only with pseudo-Pauline writings,40

and two that appear elsewhere in the NT only in Rom 1.1832which, as part of the larger passage under consideration, may wellbe non-Pauline.41 This comes to a total of at least eighteen andperhaps twenty words in Rom 2 that are non-Pauline. In addition,the chapter contains two words that appear elsewhere in the auth-entic writings of Paul only in quotations from the OT42 and eightother words that appear only once elsewhere in the authenticwritings of Paul.43 To be sure, this represents a significantly lowerproportion of non-Pauline words than is the case with 1.1832.Nevertheless, chap. 2 contains a somewhat higher concentration ofhapax legomena than is typical of the Pauline writings.44 This, inmy judgement, suggests that the vocabulary of the chapter shouldbe regarded as at least marginally non-Pauline. Because the lin-guistic evidence here is less striking than in 1.1832, however, thecontext and ideational content become particularly important fordetermining whether chap. 2 is Pauline.

The language of Rom 1.182.29 as a whole

As regards the entire passage, Rom 1.182.29, ONeill finds atleast forty-nine words that do not occur elsewhere in the writingsof Paul. He suggests that this be compared with a total of nineteenwords not found elsewhere in Paul which occur in an equal stretchof Romans around this chapter and a half (excluding the explicitOld Testament quotations).45 My own judgement is that the lan-

37 Rjkgqo! sg|, a0 lesamo! gso|, dijaiojqiri!a, a0 mo! lx| (2), cqapso! |, e0 pomola! folai, and i/eqortke!x.38 'Ajqoasg! |, poigsg! |, lesant! , jasgcoqe! x, e0pamapat! olai, o/ dgco! |, stuko! |, paidetsg! |, and bdek-

t! rrolai.39 Pqorxpokglwi!a.40 Lo! quxri|.41 'Amapoko! cgso| (2.1; cf. 1.20) and a0 sila! fx (2.23; cf. 1.24).42 Jke!psx (2) and loivet! x (2), both in Rom 13.9.43 'Amovg! , jasauqome! x, vqgrso! |, lesa! moia, htlo! |, kocirlo! |, a0 pokoce!olai, and paqaba! sg|.44 By Harrisons count, each page of the Pauline letters as a whole contains an average of only

9.24 words that do not occur elsewhere in the authentically Pauline writings; for Rom 2,however, the number is roughly 13.33.

45 ONeill, Pauls Letter to the Romans, 41.



8/20

guage of Rom 1.182.29 is such as to indicate that 1.1829 almostcertainly was composed by someone other than Paul and that thesame may well be true regarding chap. 2.

CONTEXT

According to C. K. Barrett, The first and most difficult problem tobe solved regarding Rom 1.182.29 is the question of its place inthe argument of the epistle. Some regard it as part of a longdigression between Pauls brief summary of the Christian gospelin 1.1617 and his development of the theme of the saving right-eousness of God that begins in 3.21. Thus, the digression deals . . .with the state of mankind [sic] apart from the Gospel; it is there-fore by no means irrelevant to a presentation of the Gospel, but it isnot directly connected with 1.17.46 Most scholars see a closer con-nection between 1.182.29 and its immediate context, however,arguing that it is intended to demonstrate (or illustrate) the uni-versal sinfulness of all (3.9, 20), so as to lay the ground for Paulssolution: righteousness by faith in Christ.47

Such interpretations of Rom 1.182.29, however, are problem-atic. In 1.1617, Paul introduces the theme of the gospel, therighteousness of God . . . revealed through faith for faith, anddeclares that the gospel is the power of God for salvation to every

one who has faith. At 1.18, however, there is an abrupt shift both ofsubject matter and of tone. Suddenly and without explanation, thesubject is no longer the gospel as the revelation of Gods savingrighteousness; now, it is the wrath of God that is revealed againstwicked people who, despite the evidence of creation, have lapsedinto idolatry and, as a result, have fallen into all manner of im-moral conduct (1.1832).48 This is followed by a stern warning tothose who judge others that their own evil conduct may well lead tothe same condemnation (2.111) and the assertion that God judgesall people, both Jews and Gentiles, on the basis of their works(2.1229).

46 C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (HNTC; New York: Harper &Row, 1957) 33. Barrett insists, however, that the passage is directly connected with 1.1617.

47 E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 123; cf.,e.g., Porter, Romans 1.1832, 210.

48 See, e.g., Porter, Romans 1.1832, 21213. The transition from dijaiort! mg Heot revealed inthe gospel (1.1617) to o0 qcg' Heot revealed from heaven (1.18) raises a major theological conun-drum, the relationship of Gods righteousness to Gods wrath. The solution to that puzzle is notevident in the text. There is no explicit reference to Gentiles in Rom 1.1832, but they likelywere in the mind of the author.



9/20

Any direct ideational link between 1.1617 and 1.182.29 wouldappear to require that dijaiort! mg in 1.17 be translated as justice(i.e. righteous judgment or even just punishment),49 not as [sav-ing] righteousness. With such a translation, a0 pojakt! psesai ca' qo0 qcg' Heot (for Gods wrath is revealed) in v. 18 would be virtuallysynonymous with dijaiort! mg ca' q Heot . . . a0 pojakt! psesai (for Godsrighteousness is revealed) in v. 17, and 1.1832 would representan elaboration of the causes for and nature of this wrath. It issurely clear, however, that dijaiort! mg in v. 17 does not mean just-ice in this sense. As Fitzmyer has cogently argued, Paul here (andelsewhere) uses dijaiort! mg Heot to denote the quality whereby Godactively acquits his sinful people, manifesting toward them hispower and gracious activity in a just judgment.50 The phrase re-fers, in other words, to Gods (saving) righteousness. Thus, the

possible ideational link between 1.17 and 1.1832 disappears.Moreover, the very notion of Gods wrath (o0 qcg! ) is totally unex-

pected and, many would say, even inappropriate at this point inthe letter.51 It is in no way anticipated in what precedes. Indeed,everything in the letter up to this point has been decidedly upbeat.Paul is thankful for the faith of the Roman Christians (v. 8), he haslong wished to visit them (vv. 910, 13a), he anticipates that he andthey will be mutually encouraged by each others faith (vv. 1112),and he looks forward with optimism to preaching the gospel inRome (vv. 13b15) the gospel that is the power of God forsalvation to every one who has faith (v. 16). Despite the fact thatPaul has never visited Rome, his tone is warm and intimate. Then,at v. 18, abruptly and without warning, both the subject matterand the tone become shockingly different: what in 1.117 has beena personal communication to you becomes in 1.1832 a stingingcastigation of human wickedness focusing upon a they that isnever explicitly identified, followed in chap. 2 by a similarly scath-ing critique of a you that is hypocritically guilty of judging them.This has nothing whatever to do with Rom 1.117 and, indeed,

appearing at this point in the letter, would almost certainly havesurprised and shocked its Roman readers.

It is also important to note the abrupt shifts both in audience andin person that occur in the first three chapters of Romans. In

49 Cf. Rom 2.5, where day of wrath (g/ le!qa o0 qcg|) and day of revelation of Gods righteousjudgment (g/ le!qa a0 pojakt! wex| dijaiojqiri!a|) appear to be synonymous.

50 Fitzmyer, Romans, 257; cf. 25763.51 Romans does elsewhere speak of wrath (o0 qcg! ), even indicating that it is God who inflicts

the wrath (3.5; cf. 5.9; 9.22). As already noted, however, the phrase o0 qcg' Heot does not appearelsewhere in the authentic Pauline writings.



10/20

1.117, Paul speaks in the second person to a Gentile audience.52

Almost certainly, however, 1.182.29 is addressed to a Jewishaudience 1.1832 speaking in the third person about Gentilesand chap. 2 speaking in the second person primarily to Jewsthemselves. Beginning at 3.1, however, Paul is apparently ad-dressing a Gentile audience as in 1.117, this time, however,speaking in the third person about Jews.53 These shifts in audienceand person are most readily explained, in my judgement, not assome rhetorical device adopted by a single author (Paul)54 butrather as evidence of disruption in the text.

In short, there appears to be nothing in 1.182.29 that wouldsuggest any link with 1.117. Rom 3.1, however, picks up on thenotion in 1.1617 that salvation is for every one who has faith,both Jew and Greek, and raises the question, If salvation is for

every one who has faith, does the Jew have any advantage over theGentile?55 Following a provisional Yes (3.2), Pauls consideredanswer is a resounding No! (3.910). As ONeill so cogently ob-serves, it is by no means clear how the intervening material, Rom1.182.29, would fit into the train of thought so strikingly begunin 1.1617 and continued in 3.1, for there seems to be no point tothe argument in this context.56 Indeed, if 1.182.29 were missing,the transition from Rom 1.1617 to Rom 3.1 would appear bothintelligible and smooth, and Pauls basic argument would in noway be affected.

There are only two significant verbal links between Rom1.182.29 and 1.117. The first is the verb a0 pojakt! psesai (1.17 and1.18). As already noted, however, the subject of revelation is differ-ent in the two verses: in v. 17, it is the saving righteousness of God;in v. 18 it is the wrath of God. ONeill suggests further that, whilethe verb is a truepresent tense in v. 17 (the righteousness of God isbeing revealed), it probably refers in v. 18 to the future (the wrathof God will be revealed).57 At one point ONeill assumes that all of

52 See 1.56, 13, 1415.

53 Paul shifts to the first person in 3.5, but this appears to be merely a rhetorical shift (see therhetorical questions in 3.5, 78). In 3.9, the implied subject of the first person plural verbpqoevo! leha is almost certainly Jews; if so, here for the first time in Romans Paul explicitlyidentifies himself as a Jew.

54 Or even as evidence that Paul is addressing a mixed audience (both Gentiles and Jews).55 If the words to the Jew first and also to the Greek are original in 1.16, the question would

follow almost inevitably. It may be, however, that these words were added by an interpolatorpreciselyfor the purpose of linking 1.1832 with 1.1617 (see the Jewfirst and also the Greek in2.9, 10).

56 ONeill, Romans, 41.57 Ibid., 42; cf. H.-J. Eckstein, Denn Gottes Zorn wird vom Himmel her offenbar werden.

Exegetische Erwagungen zu Rom 1.18, ZNW 78 (1987) 7479. This, however, is debatable. In



11/20

1.182.29 was written by some later commentator on Paul andthat this commentator used a verbal similarity [i.e. a0 pojak-t! psesai], in writing v. 18, to make a bridge between Pauls argu-ment and his own (i.e. that he deliberately designed theconnection).58 Elsewhere, however, ONeill suggests that1.182.29 was not composed especially for insertion into Romansat all but rather represents a traditional tract which belongsessentially to the missionary literature of Hellenistic Judaism; inthis case, it may well have been the striking similarity (i.e. theverb a0 pojakt! psesai) that first suggested the happy juxtaposition ofthe two venerable documents.59 My own judgement is that thislatter suggestion is most likely accurate.

The second significant verbal link between Rom 1.182.29 and1.117 is the phrase the Jew first and also the Greek (1.16 and 2.9,

10). As in the case ofa0 pojakt! psesai, however, it is possible that the

author of 1.182.29 used a verbal similarity . . . to make a bridgebetween Pauls argument and his own.60 It is at least equallypossible, however, that an interpolator added the phrase both toJew first and to Greek to v. 16 for the specific purpose of providinga link with 1.182.29. The phrase is not needed in 1.1617 and,indeed, is somewhat surprising in light of the fact that only Gen-tiles, not Jews, have been mentioned thus far in the letter.61 Theonly distinction made prior to 1.16 is not between Jews andGreeks but rather between Greeks and barbarians (1.14).

Whatever may be said regarding these two verbal links, it hasalready been noted that there is no apparent relation between1.182.29 and 1.117 so far as content is concerned. The situationis somewhat less clear, however, regarding the relation of Rom1.182.29 to the material that follows. One might argue that thequestion of possible Jewish advantage over Gentiles providescontinuity between chap. 2 and 3.120: chap. 2 indicates that theyhave no advantage, 3.14 provisionally suggests that they do, but3.920 asserts categorically that they do not, thus agreeing with

1.24, 26, 28, the writer three times declares that God gave [aorist tense] them up, with thepossible intimation that impurity and dishonouring of their bodies (v. 24), dishonourablepassions (v. 26), and a base mind and improper conduct (v. 28) constitute the (present, notfuture) revelation of Gods wrath. Note, too, 2.2. the judgment of God rightly falls [present tense]upon those who do such things. Clearly, however, the judgment is regarded as future in 2.510,16. Porter (Romans 1.1832, 213) separates Rom 1.1832 from chap. 2 and maintains thatGods judgment is portrayed in 1.18 (a0 pojakt! psesai) as a present reality.

58 ONeill, Romans, 43, 54.59 Ibid., 534.60 Ibid., 43.61 Rom 1.5, 13, 14.



12/20

the position of chap. 2. It is at least possible, however, that just asthe appearance of a0 pojakt! psesai in 1.17 may have suggested theappropriateness of adding 1.182.29 immediately thereafter, so toothe apparent similarity of theme between chap. 2 and 3.120 mayhave reinforced an interpolators inclination to insert 1.182.29precisely at this point in Pauls Roman letter.

A possible argument against viewing 1.182.29 as an interpola-tion is the usual translation of Pauls statement in 3.9: We havepreviously charged62 that all people, both Jews and Greeks, areunder the power of sin.63 Most interpreters find this previouscharge in 1.182.29,64 thus establishing a clear link between1.182.29 and chap. 3. In fact, however, no such charge is made in1.182.29. Regarding 1.1832, ONeill notes: the writer is notarguing that all Gentiles are sinners; . . . the argument is that

idolaters are prone to immorality, not that all Gentiles are im-moral.65 To be sure, 1.1832 is followed immediately by a warningto those who judge others that their own evil conduct will lead tothe same condemnation (2.111) and the assertion that God judgesJews and Gentiles on the same basis (2.1229). It is clear that2.1229 refers to both Jews and Gentiles, and if, as most inter-preters assume, 1.1832 refers to Gentiles and 2.111 to Jews,66

then Rom 1.182.29 does in fact suggest that some Jews and someGentiles are sinners. In chap. 2, however, there is also reference topeople, both Jews and Gentiles, who will gain eternal life throughtheir good deeds67 and, indeed, the declaration that justification ispossible through obedience to the law.68 E. P. Sanders asserts thatPauls case for universal sinfulness, as it is stated in Rom.1.182.29, is not convincing.69 I would go further: there is nocharge in Rom 1.182.29 that all people, both Jews and Greeks,are under the power of sin.70 Indeed, there is no such chargeanywhere in the Roman letter prior to 3.9. Thus, it is quite possible,in my judgement, that an interpolator added 1.182.29 before

62 Pqoaisia! olai.

63 Cf. 3.23. all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.64 E.g. W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam,A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to

the Romans (ICC; 5th edn; Edinburgh: Clark, 1902) 77.65 ONeill, Romans, 41.66 There is debate regarding whether 2.111 refers only to Jews; see, e.g. D. Zeller, Juden und

Heiden in der Mission bei Paulus (2nd edn; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976) 149 and n.36.

67 Rom 2.67, 910.68 Rom 2.13. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of

the law who will be justified; cf. 2.1229 in its entirety.69 Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 125.70 Rom 3.9.



13/20

chap. 3 precisely because it at least comes close to suggesting thatboth Jews and Greeks are sinners and, in its absence, there isnothing remotely akin to such an accusation in Romans prior to3.9.

It may well be the case, however, that pqozsiara! leha in Rom 3.9is not to be translated as we have previously charged at all. Thepreposition pqo! can mean before in terms of either time or place;thus, as a verbal prefix, it can quite properly be translated asbefore or beforehand in a temporal sense, but it can also haveother meanings such as publicly. Thus, pqoaisia! lolai may meansimply to charge publicly or openly, with no reference at all totemporality.71 Moreover, the aorist tense of the verb may well be anepistolary aorist,72 in which case it has a present, not a past,reference. Thus, pqozsiara! leha in Rom 3.9 may mean nothing more

than we [now] charge publicly or we [now] charge openly. If so,Paul is here making the charge for the first time (at least so far ashis Roman letter is concerned). Thus, it is by no means clear thatRom 3.9 requires a previous charge that all people, both Jews andGreeks, are under the power of sin. Indeed, Pauls basis for thischarge appears to be the scriptural proof-texts that follow in vv.1018, not some empirical description of human behaviour, actualor imagined.73 Some later interpreter of Paul, however, might wellhave translated pqoaisiarhai as to charge previously (as havemodern translators), regarded the aorist as a historical aorist (ashave modern translators), and thus seen the need for somethingthat would substantiate or at least illustrate the charge. As al-ready indicated, this may account for the addition of 1.182.29prior to chap. 3.

In summary, it is difficult to relate Rom 1.182.29 in any con-vincing way to the preceding material in Pauls letter to the Ro-mans, and its relation to the material that follows is at beststrained. Thus, the passage may well be an interpolation, addedbetween 1.17 and chap. 3 because of (a) the verbal link a0 pojak-

t!psesai at the beginning of the passage;

74

(b) the possibility ofprojecting the question of Jewish advantage from chap. 3 back

71 Because neither BAGD nor LSJ cites any appearance of the verb other than at Rom 3.9, itsmeaning here remains unclear.

72 See BDF 334.73 If so, Rom 3.9 is tobe viewednotas a conclusion based on alleged empirical evidence, as most

have assumed, but rather as a theologoumenon based on scripture.74 If to the Jew first and also to the Greek is original to 1.16, this would provide another verbal

link; as already suggested, however, an interpolator may well have added this phrase to 1.16.



14/20

into chap. 2; and (c) the apparent need for a charge of universalsinfulness prior to 3.9.

IDEATIONALCONTENT

Much of the ideational content of Rom 2, and to a somewhat lesserextent that of Rom 1.1832, is non-Pauline and even anti-Pauline.

As in the case of language, however, there are significant differen-ces between 1.1832 and chap. 2 so far as content is concerned; forthis reason, the two sections will again be considered separately.

The ideational content of Rom 1.1832

In my judgement, the content of Rom 1.1832 not only supports theview that the passage was not composed by Paul but also stronglysuggests that it was someone other than Paul who inserted it intothe Roman letter. Indeed, I believe that this case has inadvertentlybeen made rather convincingly by Porter.

Commentators have long recognized striking similarities be-tween Rom 1.1832 and certain Hellenistic Jewish writings of theperiod, including particularly the Wisdom of Solomon.75 Manyhave concluded, therefore, that Romans 1.1832 . . . is a denunci-ation of the Gentiles formulated [by Paul] in accord with tradi-tional Jewish reasoning.76 William Sanday and Arthur C.Headlam go further, however, asserting that there are clear in-dications of the use by the Apostle of the Book of Wisdom.77 Portercarries the argument further still: arguing that Rom 1.1832 is aself-contained discourse similar to that used in Hellenistic Juda-ism in order to establish, maintain and strengthen a well-definedboundary and distance between the Jewish community and theGentiles, he maintains that Paul first quotes the discourse (with-out identifying it as the position of his opponents) and then, begin-

ning in 2.1, challenges, argues against, and refutes both thecontent of the discourse and the practice of using such discourses.In short, according to Porter, the ideas in Rom. 1.1832 are notPauls but rather are ideas which obstruct Pauls Gentile mission

75 For a summary of similarities between the Wisdom of Solomon and Rom 1.1832, see B.Byrne, Romans (Sacra Pagina Series 6; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1996) 645.

76V. P. Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul. Selected Issues (2nd edn; Nashville: Abingdon,1985) 74; cf. 747; cf. Byrne, Romans, 645.

77 Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 51; for a chart showing thesimilarities, see 512.



15/20

theology and practice and against which Paul argues throughouthis letter to the Romans.78

Porter cites a number of points at which Rom 1.1832 is inconflict with Pauls views as stated elsewhere in Romans:79 (1) in1.1832 the divine wrath is exercised by handing over sinfulhumans to the power and authority of another,80 while Paul else-where asserts that God holds back and delays wrath rather thanhanding over and turning loose ;81 (2) Gods judgment is por-trayed in 1.18 . . . as a present reality while in 2.5 . . . and 2.6 . . . itremains in the future;82 (3) throughout Romans Paul unequivo-cally and forcefully states that judgment belongs to God,83 while1.1832 judges and calls upon the hearers to judge as well; (4)Rom 4 establishes Gods provision for the Gentiles even before thetime of Jesus Christ and asserts that God gives life to the dead

and calls into existence the things that do not exist , while1.1832 declares that God hand[s] persons over to the power ofdeath; and (5) elsewhere in Romans the necessity for the gospellies not in the human condition of wickedness and ungodliness,as some have claimed, but in God.

According to Porter, the real intent of 1.1832 is to drive awedge between Jews and Gentiles.84 This, however, would be insharp opposition to Pauls emphatic desire to bring Jews and Gen-tiles together in the Christian community. Further, the notion thatGod has handed [the Gentiles] over to immoral conduct leading todeath would appear to contradict the very point of Pauls mission tothe Gentiles. Moreover (and this is not mentioned by Porter), theapparent appeal to natural revelation in 1.1921 (cf. also v. 32) iswithout parallel elsewhere in the Pauline writings and appears tobe in conflict with 1 Cor 1.21 (in the wisdom of God, the world didnot know God through wisdom).85 It should also be noted that,

78 Porter, Romans 1.1832; quotations from p. 215.79 Ibid. 21315.80 Rom 1.24, 26, 28: paqe! dxjem at0 sot' | o/ Heo! |.

81 Rom 2.4; 3.26; cf. 3.25.82 This assumes that Rom 1.1829 and Rom 2 have different authors. On the time question,

see n. 57 above.83 Rom 2.2,3, 16; 3.19; 14.10, 12.84 Porter, Romans 1.1832, 219.85 E. Kasemann (Commentary on Romans [Eerdmans, 1980] 41) raises the possibility of a

conflict with Pauls eschatology and christology but then concludes (pp. 414) that no suchconflict is evident. Similarly, Fitzmyer (Romans, 2734) argues that such conflict is far fromclear. Note Pauls Areopagus speech in Acts 17.2231, which does include such an appeal. Forthe relation between Rom 1.1921 and Acts 17.2231, see, e.g., P. Vielhauer, On the Paulin-ism of Acts, Studies in LukeActs (ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn; Nashville/New York:

Abingdon, 1996) 347.



16/20

while the responsibility for human sin . . . is laid clearly at the feetof human beings in Rom 1.1832, elsewhere in Romans sin ischaracterized as an oppressive power that ensnares and domi-nates the lives and actions of people.86 Finally, there is nothingspecifically Christian in Rom 1.1832. A devout non-ChristianJew and, indeed, many non-Christian Gentiles could, without anydifficulty, subscribe to everything in the passage.

In short, it appears that the content of Rom 1.1832 is not onlynon-Pauline but even anti-Pauline at significant points.

Porter, while emphasizing the conflict between Rom 1.1832 andthe views of Paul, nevertheless argues that Paul included thepassage in the Roman letter precisely for the purpose of refuting it.

According to Porter, That Paul sometimes includes in his letters astatement or a saying of his readers or opponents without ident-

ifying it as such has been widely acknowledged by interpreters andtranslators.87 This is surely true, but none of the examples previ-ously noted is anywhere near the length of Rom 1.1832.88 In myown judgement, it is most unlikely that Paul would include such alengthy non-Pauline (anti-Pauline) passage without identifying itas such, simply for the purpose of refuting it. Indeed, if the subtletyof his alleged rhetorical strategy has escaped all interpreters untilthe present, it is doubtful that it would have been recognized by hisoriginal readers (or hearers). As Harrison so aptly phrased it, withall due respect, I cannot see St. Paul lifting a passage like this fromanywhere.89 In short, I regard Porters analysis of Rom 1.1832 asa strong argument not only against Pauline authorship of thepassage but also against Pauline insertion of the passage into theRoman letter.

The ideational content of Rom 2

If Porter has inadvertently made a strong case that Rom 1.1832 is

86 C. B. Cousar, The Letters of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996) 11920.87 Porter, Romans 1.1832, 222 (in n. 39, Porter cites my own The Burden of Proof in

Identifying Interpolations in the Pauline Letters as making a significant contribution to thedebate on the question of interpolations; my work, however, deals with non-Pauline materialsinserted by someone other than Paul, not non-Pauline materials used by Paul).

88 Porter cites J. C. Hurd, Jr, The Origin of I Corinthians (New York: Seabury, 1965) to supporthis claim. All of the examples noted by Hurd, however, are very brief. 1 Cor 6.12, 13; 7.1; 8.1, 4,56, 8; 11.2. To my knowledge, the longest proposed example is 1 Cor 11.37b (A. Padgett, Paulon Women in the Church. The Contradictions of Coiffure in 1 Corinthians 11.216, JSNT 20[1984] 6986).

89 Harrison, Paulines and Pastorals, 84.



17/20

a non-Pauline interpolation, I believe that Sanders has made aneven stronger case with regard to Rom 2.90 Sanders notes thatwhat is said about the law in Romans 2 cannot be fitted into acategory otherwise known from Pauls letters, and, for this reason,he consigns his own treatment of the chapter to an appendix.91

Specific points at which Rom 2 appears to conflict with positionswhich Paul elsewhere adopts include the following: (1) the . . .statement that those who do the law will be righteoused (2:13);92

(2) Pauls statement about repentance (2:4); (3) the hearing anddoing theme (2:13), which has numerous parallels in Jewishliterature, but none in Pauls letters; (4) the phrase di!jaio| paqa' s{He{ (2.13), which is also without a Pauline parallel and appears torest on a Semitic Jewish formulation; (5) the statement . . . thatGentiles who keep the law will judge Jews who do not (2.17), which

is at variance with Pauls view that Christians (the saints) will judge the world (1 Cor. 6.1); and (6) the emphasis on actuallydoing the law and thereby gaining justification.93

Of particular significance is the emphasis upon justification byworks (e3qca) of the law and judgment based upon obedience to thelaw.94As Sanders notes, the point of chap. 2 is not that no one cankeep the law because several verses mention those who do keep it;moreover, the condemnation of the Jews is that they do not keepthe law, or do not keep it well enough, not that they keep it in thewrong spirit; and finally, those who keep the law will condemnthose who do not (2.18).95

Sanders suggests that the best way to read all of Rom 1.182.29is as a synagogue sermon, the point of which is to have its hearersbecome better Jews on strictly non-Christian Jewish terms, not tolead them to becoming true descendants of Abraham by faith inChrist:96 what is at stake is whether or not one is a good Jew, agood Jew as judged not on the basis of sharing Abrahams faith, butof obedience to the law.97 Sanderss conclusion is: I find, in short,

90 ONeill (Pauls Letter to the Romans, 4556) makes many of the same points as Sanders, butI focus on Sanderss discussion because he, unlike ONeill, is unwilling to regard it as aninterpolation.

91 Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 132.92 Sanders prefers to righteous as the translation ofdijaiotm.93 Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 125.94 Cf. ONeill, Pauls Letter to the Romans, 47.95 Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 126.96 Ibid. 129.97 Ibid. 13; cf. ONeill, Pauls Letter to the Romans, 53.



18/20

no distinctively Pauline imprint in 1.182.29, apart from the tag in2.16.98

Not surprisingly, Sanders asks, Why is the chapter in Romansat all? His only answers are: (1) the chapter puts Jew and Gentileon the same footing not . . . as Paul does in Romans 3 and 4 (allhave equal opportunity to be righteoused by faith in Christ), butnevertheless on equal footing; thus, different parts of it, thoughnot in a consistent or objective way, lead up to 3:9; (2) in the specialcircumstance of writing to a church which he did not know, Paulmay have used traditional material to an unusual degree.99

Sanders specifically rejects the idea that Rom 1.182.29 is aninterpolation, citing, rather, the frequent observation that even ifPaul did not himself compose some of the material in his letters, hedid incorporate it, and he could not have done so if it went com-

pletely against the grain.100

Such a response, however, obviouslybegs the question of whether Paul did in fact incorporate thispassage into the Roman letter. Moreover, it comes perilously closeto circular argumentation: Paul incorporated the passage into theletter; he would not have done so if it went completely against thegrain; thus, the passage does not go completely against the grain;ergo, it could well have been inserted into the letter by Paul. Myown judgement is that the material does go completely against thegrain and was incorporated into the Roman letter by someoneother than Paul.

Although he declines to treat Rom 2 as an interpolation, Sandersdoes note that there is a difference between Rom 2 and otherpassages often viewed as Pauline inclusions of non-Pauline ma-terial: Phil 2.611 and Rom 1.34, for example, are christological intheir content, but Rom 2 at no points reflects specifically Christianthinking. To be sure, Pauls virtue and vice lists [also] do notreflect a particularly Christian point of view, but Rom 2 stands outbecause it deals directly with salvation and makes salvation de-pendent on obedience to the law. It is because of what is said about

the law in Romans 2 that the passage cannot be fitted into acategory otherwise known from Pauls letters . . ..101 My own

judgement, therefore, is that, despite his disclaimer, Sanders hasmade a convincing case for viewing Rom 2 as a non-Pauline inter-polation.

98 . . . on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of people by ChristJesus.

99 Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 131.100 Ibid.101 Ibid., 1312.



19/20

CONCLUSION

My own examination of the language, context, and ideational con-tent of Rom 1.182.29 leads me inescapably to the conclusion thatONeill was right: the entire passage is a non-Pauline interpola-

tion.

Appendix: A note regarding the textual history of Rom 1.192.1

According to Theodor von Zahn and A. von Harnack, Rom 1.192.1did not appear in Marcions authentic text of Romans.102 Mostscholars (including Harnack) assume that Marcion eliminatedthese verses because he objected to something in their content.103Anumber of years ago, however, P.-L. Couchoud argued that it was

Marcion who preserved the original text of the Pauline letters andthat the now-extant MSS include numerous interpolations.104 Al-though this view has generally been rejected, Harrison maintainsthat in this particular instance [i.e. Rom 1.192.1] Couchoud camenearer to the truth than he himself realized.105

Harrison notes that Marcions text omits not only 1.1932, whichMarcion no doubt would have found objectionable, but also 2.1, towhich he would have had no plausible objection.106 For Harrison,the most likely explanation for the omission of 2.1 is that the entirepassage, 1.192.1, had no place in the text of Romans used byMarcion, being an interpolation added by some scribe.107 Harrisonthen cites various aspects of the linguistic evidence discussed

102 T. von Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Leipzig: Deichert, 188892)2.516;A. von Harnack, Marcion. The Gospel of the Alien God (Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1990; Ger.original, 1924) 34. For a summary of the evidence, see Harrison,Paulines and Pastorals, 79. Onthe difficulties involved in reconstructing Marcions text of the Pauline letters, see J. Knox,

Marcion and the New Testament. An Essay in the Early History of the Canon (Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago, 1942) 4653. For an argument that Marcions role was not the creation of a newtext butthe adaptation of an already existing Pauline Corpus, see J. C. Clabeaux,A Lost Editionof the Letters of Paul. A Reassessment of the Text of the Pauline Corpus Attested by Marcion

(CBQMS 21; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989) quotation from p. 4.103 See, e.g., Harnack, Marcion, 34: he eliminated 1.192.1 completely because this bit of

natural religion had to go counter to his opinions, just as did the idea that men [sic] are given upby God to the most dreadful vices as punishment.

104 Couchoud, La premiere edition de Saint Paul and Reconstitution et classement des lettresde Saint Paul.

105 Harrison, Paulines and Pastorals, 80.106 Ibid., 81: . . . on Harnacks own showing . . . Marcion included in his Gospel the words

judge not that ye be not judged, condemn not that ye be not condemned . . .. So there is nothingin this verse to which Marcion could or did object. Yet it was as certainly missing in the

Apostolicon as the fourteen verses preceding it.107 Ibid.



20/20

above to support his view that Rom 1.192.1 is a non-Paulineinterpolation.108

Along with the considerations of language, context, and idea-tional content, this bit of textual history may support the view thatat least Rom 1.192.1 is an interpolation.

108 Ibid., 825.


Documents

Walker-Rom 1.18-2.29 as Interpolation