Christian Texts and History • Questioning the Pauline bits that Joseph Turmel didn't question

I. Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, chosen an apostle, set apart to preach the gospel of God, 2 which God had promised by his prophets in his holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his son; 4 established in power according to the Spirit of holiness 1 by the resurrection of the dead. Jesus Christ our Lord,

We start off with a Catholic interpolation, piling on anti-Marcionite features, namely Old Testament prophecy, adoptionistic Christology, and Davidic Messianism. Marcion did not believe the Jewish scripture predicted the Christian Jesus. He did believe a Jewish messianic king, descended from King David, would appear and satisfy Jewish expectation, but this was not Jesus Christ. Nor did Marcion accept the Jewish-Christian notion that Jesus had become God’s son by adoption. For Marcion, Jesus simply appeared on earth one day, already an adult and with a celestial body. A Catholic redactor has tried to counteract all these features of Marcionism to sanitize the epistle for Catholic use, and he wastes no time in doing so: right at the beginning!
All commentators recognize that verses 3 and 4 are foreign material, partly because of the non-Pauline adoptionism. But mainstream critics suggest Paul himself has inserted, that is, quoted, a fragment of a Jewish-Christian creedal affirmation cherished by the faction of Roman Jewish Christians to whom, in part, the epistle is directed. Paul wants to win them over, and right off the bat. The trouble with this theory is that it envisions an utter lack of sincerity on the author’s part, imagining Paul in effect signing on to a creed, a pretty serious matter, to which he does not in fact subscribe. That is a bit more than “doing as the Romans do.” Besides, can we really envision normative creeds belonging to different Christian denominations this early in Christian history? That is, if the author is the historical Paul? It is almost like having Paul comment on the filioque clause of the Nicene Creed.
One might point out, however, that it would be equally dishonest for an interpolator to smuggle into the text a creedal bit he had no reason to believe Paul would have affirmed. But that is not quite right. In such a case, what we have to envision is a scribe thinking how best to improve or amend a regulative text, not whether to misrepresent the opinions of an historical individual. As 2 Peter 1:21 says, “prophecy was never brought by human initiative, but mortals spoke from God as the Holy Spirit carried them along in a passive state.”

5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about obedience to the law of God in all nations in his name. 6 You also are the chosen ones of Jesus Christ. 7 To all the beloved of God who are in Rome, to the chosen saints,

grace and peace be to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

As often elsewhere, the emphasis on God the Father, which we have learned over the centuries to take for granted, emphasizes Marcionite theology in which we have abandoned the Creator God to be adopted as the children of the Father of Jesus Christ.

8 First of all I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is celebrated throughout the whole world. 9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit through the preaching of his son, is my witness that I continually remember you, 10 always asking in my prayers that, through the will of God, I may have the happiness of finally coming to you. 11 For I desire to see you in order to impart to you some spiritual gift for your strengthening, 12 that is, to encourage myself with you through the faith which is common to you and me. 13 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I have often intended to come to you - and have been prevented until now - in order to reap some fruit among you as well as among the rest of the nations, 14 I owe myself to the Greeks and the barbarians, to the wise and the simple. 15 Also I desire to announce the gospel to you also who are in Rome. 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For the righteousness of God is revealed in him through joy through faith, as it is written: The righteous shall live by faith.

This makes more sense as a fragment of an actual letter from Marcion himself announcing his intention to visit Rome, which he did. In Paul’s day there was no church there, according to Acts. But in our epistle, there is already an established congregation before Paul visits. The text seems confused: Paul is pictured as the pioneer missionary to gentiles, so he wants to exercise this ministry in Rome (verses 13-15). That would seem to mean he wants to found a church in Rome as he has done elsewhere—but then whom is he addressing? Are we to imagine him writing this to a Roman church that does not yet exist? If there is one for him to write to, then it is a bit too late for him to found the church, isn’t it? It all makes more sense as the announcement of Marcion to preach among them a version of the gospel they may not have heard. We know he did, in fact, “audition” his gospel in Rome, hoping to be acclaimed bishop there.

27 Where then is there to be glory? He is excluded. By what law? By the law of works? No, but by the law of Joy. 28 We believe that a man is justified by law apart from the works of the law. 29 Is God for the Jews only? Is it not also for the pagans? Yes, it is also for the pagans, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by Joy and the uncircumcised by Joy. 31 Shall we then destroy the law through joy? Far from it, we establish the law.

Here and in 7:7 we have accommodating attempts by Catholic Paulinists to back away from the thoroughgoing anti-Torah position of original Marcionite and Gnostic Paulinism, seeking to retain the Torah nominally by domesticating it with theological euphemism, while still setting it aside as essentially irrelevant and obsolete. One might call it a case of damning with faint praise, but that is just the goal: the Catholic Paulinist wishes only to secure a secondary position for the Torah, insultingly lesser and lower than that claimed for it in Judaism. It reminds us of the kid-gloves treatment of former rival John the Baptist in the Gospels: better to co-opt his heritage and followers than to vilify their figurehead outright (as some Christian sectarians, however, did, calling John the fountainhead of all heresies).
Note how, in the ensuing chapter, the Torah does not, in fact, play the role assigned here. Rather, it seems to pose the danger of obscuring the better promise to come. That is because we are comparing the work of two different writers.

IV. What shall we then say that our ancestor Abraham found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has cause to boast, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 But to him who has a work, the salary is not considered a grace but as a due. 5 But to him who has no works but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his joy is credited to him as righteousness. 6 Likewise David speaks of the happiness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose iniquities have been forgiven and whose sins are covered! 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute his sin! » 9 Is this happiness only for the circumcised or is it not also for the uncircumcised? We read, in fact: “The faith of Abraham was credited to him for righteousness.” 10 How then was it attributed to him? Was he in the circumcision or in the foreskin? Not in circumcision but in the foreskin. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith received in the foreskin, so that he might be the father of all those who believe who are not circumcised, so that righteousness might be imputed to them, 12 and the father of those who are circumcised and not are not only circumcised, but who walk in the footsteps of the joy that our father Abraham received in the foreskin. 13 It was not by the law that the promise was made to Abraham and his descendants that he would be heir of the world, but by the righteousness of faith. 14 For if the heirs are heirs by law, the Joy is in vain and the promise is destroyed. 15 For the law produces wrath, and where there is no law there is no transgression. 16 They are by law, that it may be by grace, that the promise may be assured to all seed, not only to them which are under the law, but also to them which are under the law by the faith of Abraham, which is the father of us all, 17 as it is written: “I have made you the father of many nations.” He is our father before God in whom he believed, who makes the dead alive, and who calls things that are not as though they were. 18 Hoping after despairing he believed, so as to be the father of many peoples, according to what was said to him: “Thus shall be your descendants.” 19 And without I was worn out, being nearly a hundred years old, and the womb of Sarah was dead. 20 And he doubted not the promise of God through unbelief; but he grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 Therefore it was credited to him as righteousness. 23 But it is not because of him alone that it is written that it was imputed to him. 24 It is also for our sakes to whom it will be credited, who believe on him who raised Jesus the Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up for our sins and was raised again for our justification

Here we have, or so I venture to guess, part of an epistle to Queen Helena and Prince Izates of Adiabene, part of Abraham’s Chaldea. In chapter 7, I suggested that, a la Robert Eisenman, Paul was the unnamed partner of Ananias, who assured Helen’s son Izates that he might convert to Judaism without undergoing circumcision since this might alienate him from his subjects who would feel he had abandoned his heritage for an alien one. I take this passage to be a sample of that persuasion: like his countryman Abraham, Izates may please God by believing in him, just as Abraham did, lacking circumcision

IX. I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie, and my conscience bears witness to me through the Holy Spirit. 2 Great sadness is in me, continual sorrow is in my heart; 3 for I would be separated from Christ for my brothers, my relatives according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the law, the services, the promises, 5 the patriarchs, of who came Christ 6 It is not that the word of God has failed, for not all who descend from Israel are Israel, 7 and because they are Abraham's descendants, they are not his children, but: “In Isaac shall your seed be called,” 8 that is, it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but it is the children of the promise who are considered the posterity. 9 For this is the word of promise: “I will come again at this time, and Sarah will have a son.” 10 Not only this, but Rebekah (should be mentioned here, she) who gave birth to Isaac our father. 11 For while the children were not yet born, neither had they done good nor evil, that the purpose of God might be according to his election, not by works, but by the will of him that calleth, 12 it was said to him, “The greater shall be subject to the lesser,” 13 as it is written, “I loved Jacob and hated Esau.”

30 What shall we say then? The pagans who did not seek justice obtained justice, justice coming from faith; 31 but Israel, which sought a law of righteousness, did not arrive at the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because he sought it not by faith but as by works. 33 As it is written: “Behold, I will lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of stumbling, and he who believes in him will not be ashamed.” X. Brothers, the desire of my heart and my prayer to God is for their salvation. 2 For I bear them witness, that they are zealous for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 Not knowing the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for the justification of all who believe. 5 For Moses writes, speaking of the righteousness which comes from the law, that the man who doeth it shall live by it. 6 But the righteousness which comes from faith speaks thus: “Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? — to bring down Christ — 7 or: Who will descend into the abyss? — to bring Christ back from the dead.” — 8 So what does she say? “Near you is the word, in your mouth and in your heart—this is the word of faith which we preach. 9 Because if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved. xo With the heart we believe for righteousness, and with the mouth we confess for salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek, since they all have the same Lord, who is rich to all who call on him. 13 For whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how will they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall we preach if we are not sent? according to what is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who proclaim good! » 16 But not all obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah said: “Lord, who has believed our preaching? » 17 Therefore faith comes from preaching, and preaching comes from the word of Christ. 18 But I say, Have they not heard? On the contrary: “Their voice went throughout all the earth and their words reached the ends of the world.” 19 But I say: Has not Israel known? Moses was the first to say: “I will make you jealous of that which is not a nation, I will provoke your anger against an unintelligent nation.” 20 And Isaiah has the boldness to say: “I was found by those who did not seek me, I showed myself to those who did not ask me.” 21 But he said to Israel, “All day long I have stretched out my hands to a rebellious and contradicting people.”

With Van Manen, [7] we must ask why the author of chapters 9-11 almost never refers to “Jews,” only to “Israel,” the exact opposite of the usage up to chapter 9. His answer: chapters 9-11 are not the work of the same author. Chapters 9-11 represent various post-Marcionite, Catholicizing attempts to formulate a framework of salvation history encompassing both Christians and Jews. The chapters were not present in Marcion’s version of Romans, as his critics tell us, nor did he entertain any of these theories. For him, as for today’s ecumenical “double covenant” theologians, Jews have their own salvation history with its own integrity and its own dramatis personae. Christians have another, independent salvation history, under the aegis of a different deity, the Father. How different might the long, bloody history of Christian-Jewish relations have been if only Marcion’s theology had prevailed!
The parallel of 9:1-3 with Exodus 32:32 implies that the faithless Israelites are damned, since it is their damnation Paul would vicariously bear if possible. This is not the impression we will receive in chapter 11, where a rather different fate is projected for Israel—final redemption. But in chapter 9 through 10:13, the idea is that it is nothing new for the lion’s share of Israelites to reject God’s will and weed themselves out of the “true Israel.” Like poor bemused Gideon’s army, Israel had always been subject to a narrowing-down process. Who said that saved Israel would be any different? It will be a righteous remnant, nothing new in Israel. This all functions as a Jewish-Christian rejoinder to critics who wrote off Christianity as one more failed messianic enthusiasm such as Jews had already beheld many times since Herod the Great’s death. If only some marginalized clique of heretics believed it, what were the chances that they were right and all other Jews were wrong? So said the skeptics. The Jewish-Christian rejoinder? “O ye of little faith! Don’t you see it’s always been this way?”
Chapter 9, verses 14-23, constitute a patch by a scribe who misunderstood the talk of election in context and, by means of catchwords, inserted this section on individual, personal predestination. In terms that have changed little ever since, the interpolation wrestles with the apparent injustice of unconditional election, finally evading the question by condemning the effrontery of mortals who would dare ask it. The rest of the chapter represents a Catholic- (and Reformed-) style co-optation of Israel, understanding Christianity to supercede it completely. Yet another Catholic scribe will sharply repudiate this in 11:17-32.
In 10:14-17, which seems to pop up out of nowhere, “Paul” argues for the necessity of sending and financially supporting foreign missionaries. The section is not a straw man statement, posed merely for the sake of argument and intended to be refuted. No, we can tell this from the scripture citations meant to reinforce the argument. You start citing scripture only when you want to prove the point. What follows, then, in verses 18-20 is not a continuation but rather a genuine refutation of these thoughts by yet another Paulinist, added here to correct the preceding.
Chapter 11 represents a still later reflection on the problem of Jewish rejection of Jesus, positing an eventual reconciliation. In this chapter we meet with a very different notion of predestination. In this case God is said to cast a spell on whole nations, one at a time, in order to direct traffic into his kingdom of salvation. He will divide and conquer the human race. First, he causes Jews (with what they naively think is their free will) to give the Christian gospel a miss, which frees it up for gentile consumption. But then Jews, watching from the sidelines, will behold with astonishment the success of Christianity in winning pagans from their degenerate superstitions. At this point the Jews will find themselves strangely warmed to the Jesus sect which once seemed so repugnant. They, too, will jump aboard and, with all the reserved seats filled, the plane to heaven will take off.
In what sense are the approaches of chapters 9-10 and 11 Catholic? It is not merely that they are post-Marcionite and non-Gnostic. No, the distinctively Catholic nature of the two discussions is evident from the fact that, while both writers seek to preserve the Jewish scriptures for the Christian canon (which Gnostics and Marcionites did not), their goal in this is not to preserve the privileges of Israel for Jews (as Jewish-Christian Ebionites would), but rather to claim the old promises made to Israel for themselves. For Marcionites and Gnostics, by contrast, the Old Testament scriptures had nothing to say to Christians. For Catholics, and the more recent Reformed Protestants, the Jewish scriptures speak only to Christians, no longer to Jews. This is true even for the author of chapter 11, since he anticipates that Jews will be saved as Christians in the Christian way, and with no reference to any Israelite theocracy.
Romans 11:1-10 concerns the fall of Jerusalem. The allusions in verses 3 and 9 to the destruction of the temple and its altar (“table”) are anachronistic, given the usual dates for Paul. But then, so is the whole condition, presupposed in chapters 9-11, that there has already been a definitive split between Jews and Christians. Could this really have been apparent within the lifetime of the historical Paul? Such a judgment would seem to require a good bit more water to have passed under the bridge.

8 I say that Christ served the circumcised for the truth of God, for the confirmation of the promises made to the patriarchs; 9 but the Gentiles glorify God because of his mercy, as it is written: “Therefore I will praise you among the nations and sing to the glory of your name.” 10 And it is said again: “Rejoice with his people, nations.” 11 And again: “Praise the Lord, you, all nations, and let all people celebrate him.” 12 And Isaiah said again: There will be a Root of Jesse, he will rise to rule the nations, the nations will hope in him. »

A subsequent Catholic scribe seeks here to demonstrate just how handy the Old Testament scriptures are for Christian use. But for his subject matter, he returns to the terms of chapters 9 through 11, Jews and gentiles together in the plan of God. He may have thought this was still the issue, even as many
modern commentators do, in chapter 15.
The interpolator of verses 7-13 tries his hand at concluding the Epistle to the Romans with 15:13, but again someone else is waiting to have his say.

14 I am well convinced, my brothers, concerning you, that you are full of goodness, full of all knowledge, and able to encourage one another. 15 Yet I have written to you a little boldly in a certain measure, to awaken your remembrance by the grace given to me from God, 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, employed in the service of gospel of God, so that the offering of the pagans may be accepted, sanctified by a holy spirit.

Here we seem to connect back up with the fragment of Marcion’s preparatory letter (Rom. 1:7b-17). Is it genuine or a pastiche?

17 Therefore I have cause to boast in Christ Jesus concerning the things of God. For I would not dare to speak of the things that Christ has not done through me, to bring the Gentiles into subjection, by word and deed, 19 by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and the neighboring countries even to Illyria, I accomplished the preaching of the gospel of Christ, 20 having made it a point of honor not to preach the gospel where Christ had been named, so as not to build on the foundation of others; 21 but as it is written: “Those who were not told about it will see, and those who have not heard will understand.”

A defender of the boundaries of the traditional Pauline sphere of influence here tries to discourage recent attempts to revise history and replace the heretical Paul with a less controversial apostolic founder, as we saw in chapter 6. Do not think to steal Paul’s legacy, his converts, his churches, from him. They will be his offerings to Christ at the End (Phil. 2:17; 4:1; 2 Cor. 1:14). “The controversy, therefore, was not between Paul and Cephas and James, but between their successors at the close of the first or the beginning of the second century.”[8]

22 Therefore I was repeatedly prevented from coming to you. 23 But now having no more place in these countries, and having for several years the desire to go to you, 24 when I go to Spain, I hope to see you in passing and to be accompanied there by you after having first, in part, -killed by you.

But does not Paul’s announced intention to go to Rome to reap some harvest (1:13-15), even though he did not found the Roman church, directly contradict his supposed scruples about working in someone else’s assigned field of service (15:20)? It is difficult to see how the apostle himself, if we picture him in the situation here described, could be so confused. It makes more sense to imagine a pseudepigraphical writer unable to keep the details of his fictive premise straight

25 But now I am going to Jerusalem for the service of the saints. 26 For Macedonia and Achaia were willing to contribute for the poor of the saints in Jerusalem. 27 They have willed it, and they are their debtors; for if the pagans have participated in their spiritual goods, they must assist them with their carnal goods. 28 When I have finished this and delivered this product to them, I will go to Spain by way of you. 29 I know that coming to you, I will come with the fullness of the blessing of Christ. 30 I exhort you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the spirit, that ye contend with me in your prayers for me unto God, 31 that I may be delivered from the unbelievers of Judea, and my ministry in Jerusalem be acceptable to the saints, 32 so that, coming to you with joy through the will of God, I may rest with you. 33 May the God of peace be with you all.

This chapter has Catholicized and Judaized Paul entirely in the spirit of the Acts of the Apostles. The writer has also possibly confused Marcion’s crucial visit to Rome with Paul’s to Jerusalem. Both are said to have headed to their goal with a large monetary gift in tow, and neither was warmly received. Our writer may know the Acts narrative, anticipating as he does the disastrous reaction of the Jerusalem zealots to Paul’s planned offering. In Acts 21 Paul is advised to save his skin by using the money, not for poor relief or for supplementing the Jerusalem church treasury, but merely for paying off the Nazirite vow for himself and others, as if this will deceive his enemies (Acts 21:20-24). It does not, and they seek to lynch him (21:27-30). Romans 15:31 surely betrays knowledge of this outcome. That Romans does not know a pre-Acts version of the story is clear from the fact that Romans 15:31 agrees with Acts 21:27 on identifying Paul’s assailants as non-Christian Jews, whereas, as F. C. Baur detected,[9] originally, that if there is any historical nucleus to the story, the assailants must have been Torah-zealous Jewish Christians (Acts 21:20). So this late portion of Romans shares the Catholicizing agenda of Acts.
Verse 32 anticipates Paul’s death. J. C. O’Neill [10] recognizes this as the meaning of sunanapausomai, a reference to the legend of Paul’s martyrdom in Rome. The writer looks back on the death of Paul, as he knows his readers will. The prospect of a further journey to Spain is meant to tantalize the reader and make him muse over what might have been. The effect sought is exactly the same as in Philippians 1:23-26, where Paul entertains the possibility of going to his well-deserved rest but cannot stop himself from planning further apostolic work. In both cases the writer knows the reader also knows that the indefatigable Paul did not, in fact, get to carry out those plans. That’s how Paul would have to die: in mid-stride, preaching his gospel. Who can think of him spending his last years watching Jeopardy in a Corinthian nursing home?

GREETINGS XVI. I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is a deaconess of the church of Kenchrees, 2 so that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you assist her in whatever matter she may need. from you ; for she has helped many and myself. 3 [Greet Prisca and Aquila my co-workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who have exposed their heads for my life. It is not I alone who give thanks to them, it is also all the churches of the pagans. 5 Greet also the church which is in their house. Greet Epaenetus, my beloved, who was the first to give himself to Christ in Asia. Greet Mary who has worked a lot for you. 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my parents and my fellow prisoners, who are notable among the apostles, and who were in Christ before me. 8 Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord. 9 Greet Urban our co-worker in Christ and Stachys my beloved. Greet Apelles who is tested in Christ. Greet those of the house of Aristobulus. 11 Greet Herodion my kinsman. Greet those of the house of Narcissus who are in the Lord. 12 Greet Triphene and Triphose, who are workers of the Lord. Greet Perside, the beloved who has worked hard in the Lord. 13 Greet Rufus, the chosen one of the Lord, and his mother who is also mine. Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the brothers who are with them. Greet Philologus and Julie, Nereus and his sister, Olympas and all the saints who are with them. 16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ salute you.]

19 For your submission has become known to all. I want you to be wise regarding good and pure regarding evil. 20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan 2 under your feet. May the grace of our Lord be with you

21 Timothy my colleague greets you, as well as Lucien, Jason, Sosipaler, my parents. 22 Hail in the Lord, O Teriius, who wrote this letter. 23 Gaius, my host and the host of the whole church, greets you. Eraste, the city treasurer, greets you and Brother Quartus.

Chapter 16 is a separate letter on behalf of one Phoebe. Is the letter of recommendation for Phoebe fictive? Why would anyone create such a writing and attribute it to Paul? They would do it simply because it establishes an apostolic link between Paul and the church leaders and workers named in it. The letter is equivalent in function to the resurrection appearance list in 1 Corinthians 15:3-11, providing apostolic credentials for those named. It is also equivalent in purpose to the genealogies in 1 Chronicles, which served as credentials for the priestly houses whose representatives wrote the book and administered the Second Temple. It is also possible that this one-chapter epistle has the same intended function Tertullian attributed to the Acts of Paul and Thecla: to authorize the leadership role of women in heretical Paulinist sects. That, after all, is pretty much the same use made of it by Christian feminists today.
Verse 3 mentions Priscilla and Aquila, elsewhere referred to as associates of Paul (Acts 18:2, 18, 26; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19). It is striking that Simon Magus, too, had a disciple named Aquila, as mentioned in the Clementine Recognitions. There Aquila breaks with Simon and becomes a follower of Peter. One could not ask for a nicer instance of “Tübingenism” (the schema set forth by F. C. Baur and his students). Again, Simon is Paul, and like Acts’s “John Mark” (Acts 12:12; 15:36-40; 1 Peter 5:13), Aquila leaves the Pauline circle to wind up in the Petrine circle instead. Disciples of each apostle are (fictively) traded like ambassadors of two hitherto hostile countries. And why should we not take verse 10’s reference to Apelles as a mention of the Marcionite Apelles?
Verses 17-20, which interrupt the sequence, sound strikingly like the Pastoral Epistles and are likely interpolated by a Pastoral redactor. Without the phrase “through the prophetic writings,” which thus may be a secondary addition, the concluding doxology in 16:25-27 sounds Marcionite. Note that the gospel has been hidden for ages and is only now revealed, something one would never say if one regarded the Old Testament as full of messianic predictions and typologies. This concluding doxology seems to have been formulated by a redactor to end Romans as a whole and was not part of the letter for Phoebe