Vulgate Manuscripts Missing the Last Two Chapters of Romans?

I’m attempting to work on a paper on the doxology in Romans, found as 16:25–27 in the THGNT and (in brackets) in the NA28. As part of my literature review, I spent some time surveying the treatment of this question in a number of commentaries. While reading Cranfield’s classic ICC, I was very surprised to come across the following statement, for which no explicit source was cited: 

(v) In the Vulgate MSS. 1648, 1792 and 2089 the text of Romans comprises only 1:1–14:23 followed immediately by 16:24–27. [p. 1:6]

My previous understanding had been that, despite a number of theories that have postulated a shorter version of Paul’s most famous letter, there were no extant manuscripts that actually contained such a shorter text. Further investigation seemed warranted. 

The first task was to identify which manuscripts Cranfield had in mind. The reference numbers he provided do not match anything found in Wordsworth-White’s large critical edition of the Vulgate, nor do they provide any notice of a Latin manuscript with a shorter text form. Furthermore, although they mention the textual problem of the doxology in a note, they do not cite any Latin manuscripts that have it at the end of our chapter 14, where it is found in the bulk of the Byzantine tradition. 

After a little digging, I determined that Cranfield’s source (which he had previously cited) was almost certainly T. W. Manson’s 1948 article, “St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans—And Others.” Manson states that: 

To the evidence of these tables we can add that of three MSS. of the Vulgate in Gregory’s notation 1648 and 1792 (both of Munich) and 2089 (of the Monza Chapter Library). In these the text ends at xiv. 23 and is followed by a short benediction and the doxology. [p. 232]

My first query was now solved—the numbers used by Cranfield go back to Gregory’s survey of Latin manuscripts in his Textkritik and with this knowledge I was able to identify their modern shelf numbers. For this statement, Manson cites Rudolf Schumacher’s 1929 study Die beiden letzten Kapitel des Römerbriefes in Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen. Schumacher discusses the three manuscripts, all of which have the doxology, preceded by a grace wish in one form or another, after 14:23. Schumacher concludes his discussion of these manuscripts by stating: 

Nach allem Gesagten ist nicht daran zu zweifeln, daß es eine lateinische Rezension gegeben hat, welche die beiden Schlußkapitel fortließ.  [p. 15] 

In light of all that has been said, there is no doubt that there was a Latin version that omitted the two final chapters.

While this is a clear enough statement and could well be the case, what was still not clear to me was whether or not these particular manuscripts actually contained such a shorter version as Cranfield said they did. Schumacher in turn pointed to a 1911 article by De Bruyne, entitled “La finale Marcionite de la lettre aux Romains retrouvée.” 

Having already discussed the Monza manuscript (this is VL 86, a detailed discussion and full transcription of which can be found in Frede’s Altlateinische Paulus-Handschriften), De Bruyne first mentions a group of manuscripts that have the doxology after 14:23. According to De Bruyne: 

• Florence, BML, Plut 25.10 has the doxology after 14:23 written in the margin by a second hand, while a third hand has crossed it out. 
• Florence, BML, Plut 25.2 has the doxology after 14:23 in the main text. 
• Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana, MS 222, as above.
• Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, A.7, as above. 

De Bruyne then comes to the two Münich manuscripts originally mentioned by Cranfield, BSB, Clm 17040 and BSB, Clm 17043. De Bruyne notes that, in Clm 17040, 14:23 is followed by the text of the blessing he had previously reconstructed for the Monza manuscript, then the doxology (“il contient après le chapitre 14 le souhait suivi de la doxologie” [134]). Since this manuscript has few other archaic features, he suspected it as an interpolation, which was confirmed by the fact that it is actually written in the margin of Clm 17043, of which it seems to be a copy. 

In context, De Bruyne is concerned about using these manuscripts to reconstruct the text of the blessing and doxology found in VL 86. Although VL 86 itself contains the last two chapters of Romans, De Bruyne was already convinced that the early placement of the doxology was evidence for a shorter version of Romans in the Latin tradition. Yet while neither he nor Schumacher clearly state that any of these manuscripts actually omit the last two chapters of Romans, they also do not explicitly say that they do contain them. 

Unfortunately, neither of the Münich manuscripts are available online. However, Elisabeth Klemm provides a detailed treatment of Clm 17043 in her 2004 catalogue. In this catalogue, she explicitly refers to this discussion and says: 

Im Zusammenhang mit textkritischen Untersuchungen zu Rm 16,25-27 und der Frage nach dem originalen Schluß des Römerbriefs zieht H. J. Frede u. a. Clm 17043 heran, in welchem die Schlußverse wie in einer Reihe italienischer Hss. an Rm 14,23 anschließen (die Hss. enden aber nicht damit, es folgen trotzdem noch die beiden Schlußkapitel des Römerbriefs). [p. 89]

In connection with textual-critical studies of Rom 16:25–27 and the question of the original conclusion of the Epistle to the Romans, H. J. Frede draws upon, among other sources, Clm 17043, in which the concluding verses follow Rom 14:23, as they do in a number of Italian manuscripts (though the manuscripts do not end there; the two concluding chapters of the Epistle to the Romans still follow). 

In addition to Klemm’s statement about the Münich manuscripts, I was able to consult images of one of De Bruyne’s Italian group (Florence, BML, Plut 25.2, pictured) and determine that, while it did indeed have the doxology after 14:23, this was then followed by the remainder of the last two chapters, as well as a repetition of the doxology in its normal placement in the Latin tradition in 16:25–27.

Taken together, these data points seemed sufficient to settle my second question. While Cranfield was merely repeating Manson, Manson had misunderstood the (admittedly ambiguous) statements by Schumacher, who was, in turn, replicating the ambiguity present already in De Bruyne. While it may be the case that (as De Bruyne argued) the various placements of the doxology provide evidence for a lost shorter version of Romans, this postulated shorter version seems to be indeed lost, not only in Greek, but also in Latin.

The majority of the Latin tradition has the doxology as 16:25–27, VL86 has the doxology (though largely reconstructed) after 14:23. BML, Plut 25.2 has it in both places. (I was unable to check the rest of the witnesses mentioned by De Bruyne, but they will fall into one of these two categories). VL135 and VL77(the Latin of 012) omit it entirely. This means all four placements found in more than one Greek manuscript are also attested in the Latin tradition. (This last paragraph was edited after initial posting)