i. 13. For οὐ θέλω D* G Ambrosiaster read οὐκ οἴομαι, which Zahn thinks sounds more natural, and quite likely to be replaced by the other expression so common in Paul’s epistles. _Einleitung_, i. 262. i. 15. For ὑμῖν D* reads ἐν ὑμῖν, G ἐπ’ ὑμῖν, g _in vobis_. i. 16. Marcion was accused of having removed πρῶτον or τε πρῶτον from his text. This, however, is not so (see Zahn, _GK._, i. 639; ii. 515). It is also omitted in B G, showing, as Zahn thinks, that it was regarded as obnoxious at an early date (_Einleitung_, i. 263). Marcion did, however, drop the quotation from Habakkuk in the next verse. ii. 16. Marcion in all probability wrote τὸ εὐαγγέλιον without μου, which is now omitted only by 37 d*. In the time of Origen and in the centuries following, Marcion’s disciples laid emphasis not on μου, but on the fact that εὐαγγέλιον is in the singular number. They charged the Church with having not one Gospel, but several. See Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 171. v. 1. Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth all follow the mass of the uncials in reading ἔχωμεν, and I was therefore obliged to give this as the text of my Stuttgart edition of the New Testament. For myself, however, I hold with Scrivener and Weiss that ἔχομεν is certainly the correct reading. The same mis-spelling occurs in several manuscripts in John xix. 7, ἡμεῖς νόμον ἔχωμεν. For the reason of it, see Schmiedel’s _Winer_, § 19. According to Zahn, ἔχωμεν must be considered the right reading, and καυχώμεθα (verse 2) taken also as subjunctive. See his _Einleitung_, i. 264. v. 21. The words τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν were omitted by Erasmus, and, therefore, also by Luther. This is not noticed by Tischendorf, nor by Baljon, who follows him. xi. 13. ὑμῖν δὲ is read by א A B P, for which D G L have ὑμῖν γὰρ. Zahn thinks it difficult to say which is right, but that the sense is much the same in either case. _Einleitung_, i. 265 f. xiii. 3. The conjecture ἀγαθοεργῷ is thought by Hort to have a certain amount of probability (_Notes on Select Readings_, _in loco_). Schmiedel also thinks it deserving of consideration (_Winer_, § 19). xiv. 5. On the omission of γὰρ (B D G), see Zahn, _Einleitung_, i. 266. xiv. 23. =Conclusion of the Epistle.= The best discussion of the Conclusion of the epistle will now be found in Zahn’s _Einleitung_, vol. i. § 22, pp. 267-298, _Die Integrität des Römerbriefs_. Compare also Riggenbach, _Kritische Studien über den Schluss des Römerbriefs_: two treatises published in the _Neue Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie_, Erster Band, 1892. Bonn, 1892; _Die Adresse des 16. Kapitels des Römerbriefs_, pp. 498-525; _Die Textgeschichte der Doxologie, Röm. xvi. 25-27 im Zusammenhang mit den übrigen den Schluss des Römerbriefs betreffenden textkritischen Fragen erörtert_. Also, F. J. A. Hort, _Prolegomena to the Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians_, 1895; Sanday and Headlam, _Commentary on Romans_.