Indications

Supports Model B:

Ephesus

Supports Model A:

Rome

Harrison ([19], p. 4) reported that several ancient manuscripts lack the words “in Rome” at Romans

1: 7 (G, Origen, Ambrosiaster according to Harrison, [3], p. 307). We assume here that the copy sent to Ephesus probably did not say “in Ephesus” because it was a copy but omitted “in Rome” because Rome was not its destination.

YES

Marcion omitted the last two chapters of Romans in his compilation of New Testament epistles” (Harrison, [19], p. 171)

YES

P46 closes with 16: 25-27 at end of chapter 15 as if most of chapter 16 was an addition to an original manuscript with chapters 1-15 only (Manson, [2], pp. 234-235)

YES

Exhortations in 16: 17-20 “read very oddly if they are taken to be addressed to a church to which Paul was a stranger” (Manson, [2], p. 237)

YES

There are no quotes from Romans 15-16 in Irenaeus, Tertullian, or Cyprian (Manson, [2], p. 235)

YES

No extant Greek manuscripts (completely) omit chapters 15 or 16 (Hiebert, [6], p. 171; Fiensy, [7], p. 230)

YES (?)

The Muratorian canon may mention Romans 15 but not Romans 16 (Manson, [2], p. 235)

YES

Romans 16: 17-20 has similarities to Acts 20: 29-32 (Manson, [2], p. 238)

YES

There is considerable confusion in ancient manuscripts regarding the placements of doxologies in the last three chapters of Romans (Manson, [2], pp. 231-232; Robert & Feuillet, [21], pp. 449-450), which supports the hypothesis that more than one version was in circulation no later than the second half of the second century (Manson, [2], p. 237)

YES

It is surprising that the problems mentioned in Romans 16: 17-20 are not mentioned earlier in Romans 1-15 if they were a major issue with the church at Rome; however, such issues had been a problem at Ephesus; furthermore Paul’s directives sound far too authoritarian for someone who had never visited Rome but would make sense for someone who has pastured the Ephesian church for three years (Price, [20], p. 427)

YES

As noted by Guthrie ([9], p. 413), “Epaenetus is cited as the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia.” That comment would fit better if he were in Ephesus than if he were in Rome.

YES

Hiebert ([6], pp. 173-174) argued that Romans 16:16 “All the churches of Christ salute you” makes more sense if the destination is Rome rather than Ephesus; given the importance of Ephesus in the areas evangelized by Paul, that could probably be disputed (i.e., the churches established by Paul were probably more familiar with the church at Ephesus than with the church at Rome)

YES (?)

Manson ([2], p. 241) noted that P46 agrees more with the eastern Codices Sinaticus, Codex Alexandrinus (A), Codex Vaticanus (B), and the Codex Ephraemi Syri (C) and also with the western Codices D, F, and G with respect to Romans than with any other Pauline epistle, suggesting that P46 reflects a very early form of the Greek text sent to Rome.

YES

Priscilla and Aquila had left Rome for Corinth/Ephesus about 49 A.D. because of the edict of Claudius expelling the Jews. They may have returned after Claudius died in 54 A.D., but since Romans was written about 56-57 A.D. and Paul ministered in Ephesus with Priscilla and Aquila from 53-56 A.D. that would narrow their date of movement back to Rome to the 56-57 A.D. timeframe, a fairly short period of time to reestablish a house church²⁶ (Price, [20], p. 427). Since they were back in Ephesus as of 2 Timothy 4: 19 (A.D. 64-67), it is more plausible to argue - or at least more parsimonious - that they stayed in Ephesus the entire time. See Guthrie ([9], p. 413).

YES

Rufus was probably known from Mark’s Gospel, which was written under Peter, who was in Rome about A.D. 62-64 when I and II Peter may have been written. I Peter mentions Mark, which suggests Mark was in Rome about A.D. 62-63. Mark is also mentioned as being with Paul in his prison epistles (A.D. 61-62), but is mentioned as potentially visiting the area near Colosse (i.e. Ephesus) sometime soon. Peter appeared to be in the area between Jerusalem and Antioch of Syria about A.D. 48-49 (Galatians 2) for the Council at Jerusalem. However, Mark was in Ephesus about A.D. 64-66 when he is mentioned in 2 Tim 4: 11 by Paul. Harrison views this as a major argument for Rome ([19], p. 165).

YES (?)

To counter the above argument, it can be noted that if Rufus was in Rome with Mark and Peter as of A.D. 57, it might have seemed peculiar for Paul to highlight a relatively unknown Christian and at the same time omit mention of the much better known Mark and Peter, both of whom Paul had met or worked closely with. That is why Pfeiffer & Harrison ([19], p. 1179) say that “If Peter had been at Rome when Paul wrote this epistle, Paul certainly would have sent him greetings. Paul’s longstanding desire to preach in Rome (Rom 1: 11-13) and his policy of not building on another man’s foundation (15: 20) make it seem unlikely that Peter was even in Rome before the time of the writing of Romans.” Paul’s relatively unfavorable comments on Peter and his experiences with Mark were several years previous. If Rufus was at Rome, it seems strange that Paul mentions Mark in his prison epistles but omits greetings from Rufus (if Rufus and Mark and Paul were that close as Harrison implies)

YES

If all the people mentioned in Romans 16 were indeed at Rome as of A.D. 57 and if Paul reached Rome in A.D. 60-61, it is very strange that none of them greeted him when he arrived at Rome - or at least they are not mentioned by name (Acts 28: 15).

YES

If Paul had a large contingent of close supporters at Rome, it seems unusual that Peter - at Rome - would describe Paul’s writings as strange and difficult (2 Peter 3: 16); in fact, Paul discusses apparent enemies at Rome some years later (Philippians 1: 15-16, A. D. 59-61), which would be surprising if he had such a large contingent of as many as seven house churches in Rome as early as A. D. 56 or 57 (Fiensy, [7], p. 230).

YES

Is it more plausible that Paul would be able to describe the following from a place he had lived for three years (A.D. 53-56) right before Romans was written or with respect to a place he had never yet visited?³⁰

Several house churches of Christians

Two Christians who had been in prison with him

Three fellow workers

His first convert in the area around Ephesus

Three people he loved or had a close relationship with

Five people of whom he had knowledge of their work or character

Eleven or twelve persons whom he knows by name even though

nothing special is mentioned about their character, work, or close

relationship with Paul

YES

Harrison observed that travel to Rome from Ephesus was easy and quite possible ([19], p. 162); however, travel could go both ways and former servants of the Emperor could have traveled to Ephesus to partake of the fellowship there. However, the similarity of names mentioned by Paul, especially Herodian and members of the household of Aristobulus, tends to support a Roman destination, even though an argument could be made that the common names might have just as easily been found in Ephesus (nevertheless, this is counted as an indication for model A)

YES (?)

Paul’s favorable comments to selected individuals would have seem like playing favorites if written to Ephesus (Harrison, [19], p. 163); however, the comments could have served as a list of key people to meet when Phoebe visited Ephesus (with something about why each was important; see Manson, [2], p. 238 and Price, [20], p. 428 for the idea that Phoebe took the letter to Ephesus). We would argue that saying you “love Ampliatus in the Lord” and not mention others would be more risky in a church with which you were unfamiliar; in contrast, if a church were very familiar with you, you could make such distinctions more safely. However, We would counter that partiality was avoided by Paul’s mentioning such a large number of individuals (if everyone who might expect to be mentioned is mentioned that would tend to reduce the risk of appearing partial). In spite of our doubts, we have counted this as an indication for Model A.

YES (?)

Phoebe may have been going to raise funds for Paul’s trip to Jerusalem but that could have been true whether she was going to Rome or to Ephesus. Phoebe might just as well have been unfamiliar with the Ephesian churches and in need of their support either for herself or to help raise funds for Paul’s expedition to the West. Since Paul planned to visit Ephesus, but only briefly, en route to Jerusalem, would not his best hope of raising funds immediately come from Ephesus, especially given the uncertainties of his future? For sake of argument, though, we will count this as an argument for Rome as the destination for chapter 16, even though it might be that Romans 16: 1-2 was sent to Rome and Romans 16: 3-27 was sent to Ephesus (Guthrie, 1990, p. 415).

YES (?)

The warnings in Romans 16: 17-19 “… appear to be against a form of antinomianism which is known to have thrived at Ephesus.” (Guthrie, [9], p. 413).

YES

Hiebert ([6], p. 173) argued that Paul never sent personal greetings to a church with which he was familiar but did send greetings to people he knew in churches he had never visited (However, this argument was disputed previously, but we are still counting it as an indication for Model A)

YES (?)

Peter was known to have been at Rome, at least later, and probably wrote his Epistles from Rome. If he knew that Paul’s epistle to the Romans had also been sent to Asia Minor and given that parts of Romans are among the most difficult of Paul’s writings, Romans may be what is referred to in 2 Peter 3: 15-16 (which relieves Hebrews of the burden of supporting Peter’s comment, which agrees with most recent scholarship that denies Pauline authorship of Hebrews)

YES

Hiebert argued that sending a letter consisting “almost entirely of greetings” would have been “a monstrosity,” that “The ancients would not have thought of writing such a letter.” However, Lohse provided evidence that such letters were written in ancient times, lending support to the possibility of Paul preparing such a letter.

YES

TOTAL INDICATIONS OF SUPPORT FOR EACH MODEL

19

7