Novum

Testamentum
An International Quarterly for
New Testament
and Related Studies

BRILL Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 165-182 brill nl/nt

The Methodological Dilemma of Evaluating the

Variation Unit in Romans 11:31

A Text Critical Study and a Suggestion about First Century

Social History and Scribal Habits

David A. Kaden
Toronto

Abstract
Romans 9-11 has attracted much scholarly attention, and the amount of secondary litera
ture is nearly overwhelming. Yet, no serious scholarly-length article has emerged that
wrestles with the textual issues of 11:31. Why? How might a full treatment of this varia
tion unit impact the interpretation of the surrounding chapters? This article seeks to
answer these questions by examining the social situation of Jewish-Christian relations and
hostilities from the late first to the late second centuries CE. It reflects a trend in early
Christian textual criticism away from questing after an "original" text to instead examin
ing the social context of variation units.

Keywords
variation unit; original text; scribal habits

Introduction

It is simply stunning that a single word could be so crucial in a variation

unit, 1 impacting wide-ranging issues from social scientific interpretation
2
to interfaith dialogue, and yet be so neglected by exegetes. This variation

For a definition of "variation unit" see Eldon Jay Epp, "Toward the Clarification of the
Term 'Textual Variant'," in Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and
Method of New Testament Textual Crincism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000) 50.
2)
In this regard Bart Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early
Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York and Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993) has done much to awaken scholars of Christian origins to the
social significance of textual variants.

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI 10 1163/156853610X497915

166 DA. Kaden /Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 165-182

unit appears in Rom 11:31, where the issue at stake is whether salvation
for Israel occurs diachronically alongside that of the Gentiles, or whether
carries a futuristic and telic sense, so that Israel will be saved at
the end of history. If the variant is included in the text, then it would
logically cohere with the first view, but if it is omitted then the second
view becomes more plausible. The problem is that most scholars have
given these issues only a cursory glance. In fact, I have searched in vain
for even one substantial scholarly article3 entirely devoted to the textual
issues in v. 31 independent of a full exegesis of the surrounding pericope!
Ironically, a veritable consensus has arisen about the "originaT reading
apart from any serious article-length examination of the textual issues
involved. From where does this scholarly certainty come? For recent writ
ers it appears to come from Bruce Metzger s oft-cited textual commentary,4
which is treated as fait accompli. So confident are scholars in the author-
itativeness of Metzger s commentary that they can even be found citing
this work when making opposing arguments!5 Consequently, commenta
tors on Romans have tended to make superficial suggestions about which
reading is the "original"6 or "probably original," while settling for incon-

3)
R.W. Miller, "The Text of Rom 11:31," Faith and Mission 23 (2006) 37-53, has
attempted to analyze the textual issues of v. 31; however, his article has received no atten
tion from recent commentators on Romans because it provides only a perfunctory sum
mation of the variation unit. Further, it prioritizes "external" evidence as "objective" (38)
in the interest of discovering the "original" text (37). This leads one to the suspicion that a
theological bias in favor of inerrancy is controlling Miller s work. This notwithstanding,
his article notes the importance of Jewish-Christian relations and textual transmission. A
point I will develop below.
4)
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 4th ed. (Stutt
gart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2000).
5)
Robert Jewett, Hermeneia: Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 694, cites p. 465 of
Metzgers commentary when he concludes "the inclusion of is... the more difficult reading
that should be accepted." Ben Witherington, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) 243, also cites p. 465 of Metzgers commen
tary when he writes, "on balance the 'now' is probably a later addition." Both arguments of
course cannot be right. For the record, Jewett cites Metzger correctly. Cf., however, the ' C
rating the textual committee gives to v. 31, Metzger, Textual Commentary, 465.
^ No longer is it appropriate to refer to the "original text" as an attainable entity in itself.
First, the term is misleading because we do not have access to the autograph editions of
N T MSS. Second, we cannot produce the "original" text by using text critical methodol
ogy. We can only produce a subjectively determined better read of the evidence. Third,
some scholars have indicated that the "free" period of transmission, before MSS became
crystallized as "canonical", introduced most of the variants we have today. As a result,
there is an emerging interest among N T textual critics to examine each variant as an
example of how the living N T text was being received in the churches prior to canoniza-
 The Methodological Dilemma ofEvaluating the Variation Unit in Romans 11:31 167

gruous arguments in favor of the text critical rule of thumb, the more
difficult reading is preferred^ which, as will be shown below, has been mis-
applied when analyzing the this variation unit.
In this article I will outline a "traditional" text critical approach to
Rom 11:31, examining external and internal criteria (this assumes the
methodology of reasoned eclecticism),7 while also investigating the ever
increasing social tension between Jews and Christians8 in the first and sec-
ond centuries CE that would have influenced the first scribes responsible
for transcribing Pauls letter. This reflects a general trend in early Christian
textual criticism toward examining the social context of variants in the
first and second century CE prior to the time when our first manuscripts
appear, and away from any notion of an "original" text.9

The External Evidence

The NA27 text of v. 31 reads:

tion. See Eldon Jay Epp, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' in New Testament
Textual Criticism," HTR 92 (1999) 245-281. See also "Its All about Variants: A Variant-
Conscious Approach to New Testament Textual Criticism," HTR 100 (2007) 275-308,
where Epp writes, "each copying of a text, each scribal alteration to a manuscript, and
each translation of a text produces a new Original"' (281). Cf. note 77 below.
7)
"Reasoned" as opposed to "Rigorous." Definitions and distinguishing features are out-
lined in Gordon D. Fee, "Rigorous or Reasoned EclecticismWhich?," in Epp and Fee,
Studies, 124-140. Also, Eldon Jay Epp, "The Eclectic Method in New Testament Textual
Criticism: Solution or Symptom?," in Epp and Fee, Studies, 141-173; J. Keith Elliott,
"Thoroughgoing Eclecticism in New Testament Textual Criticism," in Bart D. Ehrman
and Michael W. Holmes, eds., The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research:
Essays on the Status Quaestiones (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995) 321-335;
Michael W. Holmes, "Reasoned Eclecticism in New Testament Textual Criticism," in
Ehrman and Holmes, Text, 336-360.
8)
The terms "Jews" and "Christians" as recognized entities/groups in the first three centu-
ries CE has been appropriately problematized in Matt A. Jackson-McCabe (ed.), Jewish
Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2007). I have preserved these terms here simply for ease of use, while recognizing the inher-
ent methodological difficulties of representation.
9)
Cf. Eldon J. Epp, "Issues in New Testament Textual Criticism: Moving from the Nine-
teenth Century to the Twenty-First Century," in David Alan Black, ed., Rethinking New
Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002) 17-76. Epp writes in
his conclusion on the last page that text critics will increasingly abandon the quest for an
"original" text "in favor of seeing in the living text and its multiplicity of variants the
vibrant interactions in the early Christian community...."
168 DA. Kaden /Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 165-182

, ' [] .

There are three variant readings in this verse.

(1) The is supported by a strong group of MSS. First, it is wit
10 11
nessed by the so-called "neutral" text-type represented by Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus, which is quite significant because the B/neutral/Alexan-
drian text-type has roots in the mid-late second century CE. This has
been verified by the discoveries both of P75a possible exemplar for
Codex and P66 an early witness of P75-B. 12 Second, this variant is
found in a small group of Coptic MSSBoharic and Fayyunicwhich
represent translations from an Alexandrian proto-text 13 and provide fur
ther early external MS support. Third, minuscule 1506, which has a cate
gory rating of II in the Alands' textbook, 14 includes this variant. And
fourth, the first and third hands of Codex Clarmontanous, a so-called
"Western" text-type, also include this variant providing both geographic
diversity for this reading 15 and another early witness, since the so-called
" D " text-type may also have roots in the second century.16 Altogether, the
external evidence for including the is quite strong.
(2) The external evidence is equally as strong if not stronger in favor of
omitting the . The first witness of this reading is one of the Chester

10)
This term originated with Brooke Foss Wescott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, The
New Testament in the Original Greek, vol. 2 (Cambridge/London: Macmillan, 1896) 250-51.
n)
For an outline of text-types see Eldon Jay Epp, "Issues in New Testament Textual Criti
cism: Moving from the Nineteenth Century to the Twenty-First Century," in David Alan
Black, ed., Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2002) 17-76, 34-44.
12)
Cf. Eldon Jay Epp, "The Papyrus Manuscripts of the New Testament," in Ehrman and
Holmes, Text, 3-21, 12; Gordon D. Fee, "P75, P66, and Origen: The Myth of Early Tex
tual Recensions in Alexandria," in Epp and Fee, Studies, 247-273, 251.
13)
So Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration, 3rd ed. (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992) 80.
14)
Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the
Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 2nd ed., trans.
Erroll F Rhodes (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1989) 135.
15)
Geographic diversity has, however, been questioned as a reliable piece of external
evidence when making textual decisions, see Epp, "Papyrus Manuscripts," 3-21. Cf. also
J. Keith Elliott, "Thoroughgoing Eclecticism in New Testament Textual Criticism," in
Ehrman and Holmes, Text, 322, whose reasons for questioning the value of geographic
diversity are primarily methodological.
16)
So Epp, "Papyrus Manuscripts," 16-17.
 The Methodological Dilemma ofEvaluating the Variation Unit in Romans 11:31 169

17
Beatty papyri, P46 (ca. 200 CE), a rather "free" text but nevertheless a
strong witness of the earliest text form. Another witness is Codex A,
which represents an Alexandrian text-type in Paul. Further witnesses
include a large group of Western texts from the second hand of D, F, G,
and the mixed Codex with Alexandrian and Western features; various
minuscules including 1175 and 1739, both of which witness to an early
form of the text; the Byzantine text-type; the majority of lectionaries that
testify to this variant s use in the churches; the old Latin; the Vulgate; the
Peshitta, which is typically Western; and the so-called "Caesarean" text-
type found in the Armenian and Georgian versions, the former being a
strong witness of the early text-type since its Greek exemplar belonged to
the Alexandrian family; the Ethiopie version, which quite often agrees
with P46; and a large number of Patristics: Origen in Latin, Didymus
(4th c ) , Chrysostom (5th c ) , Ambrosiaster (4th c ) , Ambrose (4th c ) ,
Jerome (5th c ) , Pelagius (4th-5th c ) , and Augustine (5th c ) .
(3) The third possible variant reading in v. 31 replaces the with
. Support for this variant is found mostly in the minuscules, the
strongest of which is 33 the so-called "Queen of the minuscules," because
it witnesses an early text-type and is located in the Alands' category I. 1 8
Further, some Coptic MSS along with the Slavonic versions and some
MSS of Ambrosiaster include this variant in v. 31.
Of the three possible readings in this variation unit, this one enjoys the
least amount of external support, though in terms of internal evidence it
would be quite consistent with at least one very dominant interpretation
of Romans 11. Nevertheless, our discussion of the text critical issues in
v. 31 will only touch on this third variant precisely because of its weaker
external support.
To evaluate this external data one must examine the relative weight
of the MSS. I have narrowed them down to six very significant ones:
P46 D* Byz. In the UBS4 text of Romans, A and appear in the
84 variation units agreeing 50% of the time. 1 9 Similarly and agree
slightly more than half of the timeabout 58%. 2 0 And, A and agree

17)
So Aland and Aland, Text, 93 who quote Wescott and Hort.
18)
Aland and Aland, Text, 128.
19)
In 42 of 84 variation units: 1:7, 13, 15, 31; 3:22; 4:11, 15, 19; 5:1; 6:4, 8, 11, 12;
7:14, 18; 8:21, 23, 26, 28; 9:28, 32, 33; 10:1, 15; 11:1, 21, 25, 32; 12:11; 13:1, 9, 11,
12; 14:4, 9, 10, 19, 22; 15:24, 29; 16:7, 15.
20)
In 49 of 84 variation units: 1:7, 13, 15,31; 2:16; 3:22, 28; 4:11, 15, 19; 5:1; 6:4, 8,
170 DA. Kaden I Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 165-182

21
much more oftennearly 7 5 % of the time. P46 agrees about the same
22
percentage of times with as it does when it reads alone against the
23
other three.
24
Byz agrees with A in 30 of these 84 variation units; it agrees with in
25 26 27
26 of 84; and with in 32 of 84. D* agrees with A in 30 of 84; with
28 29
in 35 of 84; with in 36 of 84; and with P46 nearly 50% of the 42
times the two MSS appear in a variation unit. 3 0
This brief analysis indicates that the variant readings in 11:31 seem to
witness the most unlikely MS combinations in the letter to the Romans.
In v. 31 A and disagree, which occurs only about 2 5 % of the time in
the letter. Also, in this verse P46 and disagree; this is the most unlikely
of the possible P46 readings in Romans. The most significant piece of data,
however, is the relationship between P46 and Byz. In v. 31 they agree to
omit the ; yet, in Romans they overwhelmingly tend to disagree.31 Fur-

12; 7:14, 18; 8:1, 2, 23, 26, 38; 9:28, 32, 33; 10:1, 15, 17; 11:1, 17, 21, 32; 12:11; 13:1,
11, 12; 14:4, 9, 10, 19, 22, 23; 15:24, 29, 33; 16:7, 15, 20, 23, 25-27.
21)
In 60 of 84 variation units: 1:1, 7, 13, 15, 29, 31; 3:7, 12, 22, 28; 4:1, 11, 15, 19, 22;
5:1, 6; 6:4, 8, 12; 7:14, 18, 20, 22, 25; 8:11, 23, 24, 26, 34; 9:23, 28, 32, 33; 10:1, 15;
11:1, 6, 21, 32; 12:11, 14; 13:1, 11, 12; 14:4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22; 15:7, 24, 29, 31; 16:7,
15,27.
22)
With A in 18 of the 42 variation units in which the two appear together: 6:11; 8:12,
28, 38; 9:23, 28, 32; 10:1, 15; 11:6, 31; 12:11; 13:9; 14:4; 15:24, 29, 31; 16:23; with
in 16 of 42: 8:38; 9:23, 28, 32; 10:1, 15, 17; 11:6; 12:11; 14:4; 15:19,24,29,31; 16:20,
23; with in 23 of 42: 6:11; 8:21, 24, 28, 38; 11:1, 17,21,25,32; 12:11, 14; 13:9; 14:4,
5; 15:24,29,32; 16:20,23,27.
23)
In 18 of 42 variation units: 6:8, 12; 8:23, 34; 11:1, 17, 21, 25, 32; 13:1, 11, 12;
14:23; 15:33; 16:7, 15, 23, 25-27.
24)
1:1, 7, 13, 15; 3:12; 4:19; 5:1; 6:4, 8; 7:20, 22, 25; 8:2, 21, 23, 24; 9:23; 10:17, 31,
32; 11:11, 14; 13:1, 9, 12; 14:12; 15:7, 31; 16:7, 15.
25)
1:7, 13, 15; 3:7, 24, 28; 5:1; 6:4, 8; 8:11, 21, 23, 24, 34; 11:11; 13:1, 9, 12; 14:5, 21;
15:33; 16:7, 15,27.
26)
1:1, 7, 13, 15; 3:12; 4:19; 5:1, 2; 6:4, 8, 11; 7:20, 22, 25; 8:23, 28; 9:4, 23; 11:1, 25,
32; 12:11, 14; 13:1, 12; 14:12; 15:7, 19, 31; 16:7, 15.
27)
1:1, 7, 15, 31; 3:12, 28; 4:19; 5:1, 6; 6:4, 8, 11; 7:14, 22; 8:26; 9:23, 33; 10:1; 11:1,
6; 12:14; 13:9; 14:10, 12; 15:19, 24, 29; 16:7, 15, 27.
28)
1:7, 15, 31; 3:7; 5:1, 2; 6:4, 8, 11; 7:14, 20; 8:1, 11, 24, 26, 34; 9:4, 33; 10:1, 17;
11:1, 31; 13:9; 14:5, 10, 21, 23; 15:7, 24, 29, 31, 33; 16:7, 15, 25-27.
29)
1:1, 7, 15, 31; 3:12, 25, 28; 4:19; 5:1, 6; 6:4, 8; 7:14, 22; 8:21, 26, 28; 9:23, 33; 10:1,
17; 11:1, 6, 25, 31; 12:14; 14:10, 12, 23; 15:24, 29, 33; 16:7, 15, 25-27, 27.
30)
6:11, 12; 8:23, 24; 9:4, 23; 10:1, 17; 11:6, 17, 21, 32; 13:1, 9, 11, 12; 14:5; 15:24, 29.
31)
P46 and Byz only agree in 12 of the 42 variation units in which they appear: 8:21, 24;
9:23; 11:21, 31; 12:11; 13:9, 11; 14:5; 15:19, 31; 16:27.
 The Methodological Dilemma of Evaluating the Variation Unit in Romans 11:31 171

32
thermore, 7 5 % of their agreements yield the text printed in the NA27,
indicating that this combination is potent, and that the V46-Byz agree
33
ment in v. 31 is quite remarkable! Additionally, the chronological diver
sity of the Byzantine witnesses and P46 suggests both that the variant
reading lacking the was tenacious and eventually achieved dominance
in the MS tradition, and at the same time that this variant is the most
ancient of the three in v. 31. 3 4 Moreover, in my opinion, this combination
of factors sways the external evidencewhich otherwise is splitin favor
of omitting the . Nevertheless, one cannot make a text critical decision
based solely upon external evidence. Therefore, we must turn to internal
criteria.

Internal Evidence

The variant readings in 11:31 were probably deliberately inserted into the
MS tradition 35 since there is no evidence of scribal oversight or copying
errors. If the variant readings were inserted deliberately then the structure
and argument of Romans 11 as well as other theological and social factors
that may have influenced copyists must be examined to determine which
readings are secondary. This internal evidence can be divided into two
parts. First, the structure of w. 30-31 must be examined to determine
whether these verses form a parallelism, which would necessitate includ
ing the , or a chiasm which would not. Second, the two dominant
views among scholars about how to read chaps. 9-11 must be outlined
with a special emphasis given to 11:26-32. This will include a discussion
of which variant accords better with which interpretation. Finally, I will
suggest that one of the secondary readings may have arisen very early, pos
sibly in the first century, because of social factors.

32) P46 reads with the printed text exactly 50% of the time it appears in the MS tradition
of Romans; Byz reads with the printed text just under 50% of the time; and for compari
sons sake reads with the printed text 6 4 % of the time.
33)
The P46-A combination is also worthy of note in that these two MSS appear together
in 42 variation units agreeing in only 18. Of those 18, however, 16 yield the printed text.
34)
In terms of hard external evidence, P46 is the oldest MS witness of a variant in v. 31.
However, see Tertullian, On Modesty 7.8 who writes, "for it will be fitting for the Christian
to rejoice, and not to grieve at the restoration of Israel... the whole of our hope is inti
mately united with the remaining expectation of Israel"a view which would be conso
nant with the omitted variant in v. 31.
35)
Similarly Metzger, Textual Commentary, 465. '
172 DA. Kaden /Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 165-182

36
To begin with, a number of notable scholars have discerned a parallel
ism in w. 30-31, which would necessitate including the regardless of
ones interpretation of chap. 11 as whole. This argument is based first upon
grammar. The issue is whether modifies
or . If the dative phrase modifies the latter verb then a balance is
preserved between w. 30-31 where a dative phrase modifies the last verb in
37
both verses. C.E.B. Cranfield outlines the resulting parallelism if the text
is read this way:

v. 30 v. 31
you these
once now (the first "now" in v. 31)
were disobedient to God have been disobedient
now now (the second "now" in v. 31)
have received mercy may receive mercy
by their disobedience by the mercy shown to you

Despite yielding an impressively balanced structure, there have been other

notable scholars who have disagreed with this reading.38 The strongest
grammatical argument against this parallelism is that the dative phrase is
forced to cross the clause to modify the verb, which is unlikely given
the proximity of the dative phrase to the first verb (). Further
more, D. Moo 3 9 has detected a chiasm between w. 30-31, so that v. 30
focuses on the situation of the Gentiles, while v. 31 focuses on the Jews.

36)
C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerd-
mans, 1985) 285-286; J. Munck, Christ and Israel: An Interpretation ofRomans 9-11, trans.
I. Nixon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967) 140; W Sanday and A.C. Headlam,^4 Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1902) 338;
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB;
New York: Doubleday, 1993) 627-628.
37)
Romans, 285.
38)
Ernst Ksemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. G.W. Bromily (Grand Rapids: Wil-
liam B. Eerdmans, 1980) 316; U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer, vol. 3: Rom 12-16
(EKKNT 6/3; Zurich: Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980) 259-
260; James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16(WBC; Dallas: Word, 1988) 688; Douglas J. Moo,
The Epistk to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996) 734-735;
Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (BECNT; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998) 628;
Lloyd Gaston, "Israels Misstep in the Eyes of Paul," in Karl P. Donfried, ed., The Romans
Debate (Peabody, MA: Hendrikson, 2001) 309-326, 320.
39)
Romans, 733-734.
 The Methodological Dilemma of Evaluating the Variation Unit in Romans 11:31 173

This second grammatical suggestion proposed by scholars does not neces

sitate the inclusion of the variant , but the first proposal does. Both
positions, however, are grammatically possible and for our purposes do
not decisively establish whether to include or omit the . Nevertheless,
it is significant to note that scholars who draw attention either to a chias-
tic or parallel structure in w. 30-31 nearly unanimously accept the as
"original."40 But on what basis do they make this suggestion if the external
evidence is virtually splitthough it tends to favor the omissionand the
structure of w. 30-31 is not decisive one way or the other?
The answer comes from one of the text critical rules of thumb the more
difficult reading is the preferred reading?1 the application of which comes
as a result of a very popular reading of Romans 11. In order to analyze
this reading it is appropriate to outline the two major interpretations of
Romans 11, which I have categorized under the titles of the "Now" and
the "Not Yet." I will begin by providing an overview of the background
issues in Romans 9-11, and then proceed to lay out these two major views
and how they accord with the variants in v. 31.

Romans 9-11
James D.G. Dunn offers a sound overview of chaps. 9-11. He begins by
noting that these chapters are not an "appendix to an exposition other
wise complete in itself... rather they are to be regarded as the real climax
of Pauls attempt to understand the place of Jew and Gentile within
the purpose of God." 4 2 Developments in scholarly understanding of
Pauls theology over the last four decades have heavily influenced the
interpretation of these chapters. No longer is Romans broadly, or chaps.
9-11 particularly, mined for information about individual predestination;
nor is the book read as an overview about the salvation of individuals per
se, nor as the foil to various quasi-Luther existential crises, nor as a tract
about how one finds salvation or appropriates salvation for oneself.43

40)
See for example the confidence of both Schreiner, Romans, 628, 630 and Jewett,
Romans, 694 that the variant is original.
41)
Jewett, Romans, 694 writes, "The inclusion of the is... the more difficult reading
that should be accepted."
42)
James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: William D. Eerd
mans, 1998) 501.
43)
For an overview of this well-known movement in Pauline scholarship, see Dunn, The-
ology, 334-389.
174 D.A. Kaden I Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 165-182

Rather, Pauls theology of justification has been reinterpreted as "his

attempt to understand how it was that Gentiles as Gentiles could be
accepted by the God of Israel."44 In doctrinal terms, Romans deals pri-
marily with ecclesiology not soteriology.45 Dunn writes:

Particularly important has been the recognition that what was at stake was nothing
less than God s own integrity, the faithfulness of God. How could Paul offer God s
covenant righteousness so freely to Gentiles without calling in question God s cove-
nant with Israel? And if God s purpose for Israel had been so frustrated, what assur-
ance did that give to Christian believers?... The issue addressed in chs 9-11 is posed
in 9.6 and again in 11.1. 9.6 is widely recognized to provide the theme for the rest of
the discussion: "Has the word of God failed?" And 11.1 simply reiterates the funda-
mental issue: "Has God repudiated his [sic] people?"... If Jews are as much in need
of God's grace in Christ as Gentiles, then what does that say about God's original
choice of Israel? Is Israel still God's chosen people?... When Paul's gospel seems to
indicate that Israel's special status before God is no longer in effect or no longer effec-
tive, that puts a question mark against God's commitment to Israelthat is, against
his [sic] faithfulness to Israelthat is, against his [sic] righteousness. Unless that issue
can be clarified, not only does Israel's status remain in question, but Paul's own gos-
pel (as the gospel of God's righteousness) is thrown into confusion.46

From this quotation, we can see two questions emerge that dominate
Pauls discussion in chaps. 9-11: What about unbelieving Israel? What
about Gods faithfulness?47 There are two major streams of thought among
scholars who seek answers to these questions.
The first of these viewpoints I am calling the "Now." Under this
umbrella term there are variegated perspectives: (1) The term "Israel" in
9:6 and in 11:26 is synonymous with the churchGentiles and a rem-
nant of believing Jewssaved through history in the "now time,"48 while
Gods faithfulness is vindicated by Gods particular predestination of indi-
viduals and/or by God s faithfulness to the covenant via a spiritualized
promise; (2) "Israel" in 9:6 and 11:26 is the remnant of believing Israel-
ites according to the flesh who are being saved in the "now time,"49 while

44)
Dunn, Theology, 501; cf. Krister Stendahl, Paul Among the Jews and Gentiles and Other
Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 3-4.
45)
N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Chris-
tianity? (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997) 119.
46)
Dunn, Theology, 501-502.
47)
N.T. Wright, Romans (NIB; Nashville: Abingdon, 2002) 621.
48)
Ibid., 689; also N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline
Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 250.
49)
B.L. Merkle, "Romans 11 and the Future of Ethnic Israel," ]ETS A3 (2000) 709-721.
 The Methodological Dilemma of Evaluating the Variation Unit in Romans 11:31 175

God s faithfulness is vindicated by God's predetermination to save only a

50
group within national Israel; (3) the so-called "two-covenant" view
(Sonderweg) which suggests that the Hebrew covenant has ongoing legiti
macy for ethnic Jews in the "now time," while the gospel has opened the
door for ethnic Gentiles to be saved as Gentiles, and God s faithfulness is
vindicated because God has not foiled the Torah-covenant by saving eth
nic non-Jews instead of, or in place of, ethnic Jews.
For our purposes the last option should be set aside because it is exe-
getically unlikely51 despite opening several positive avenues for interfaith
dialogue between Jews and Christians.
The contour of the "Now" perspective in Romans 11 as represented by
views 1 and 2 is as follows: because the "hardening" of Israel in 11:7,
25 mirrors that of Pharaoh in 9:17-18a hardening that could not be
reversedthen only those Jews who have not been hardened can be
saved. Thus Paul is speaking about a remnant of believing Jewsan Israel
within Israel (9:6)of which he himself is a part (11:1-6). His argument
in ch 9 has emphasized that God has distinguished between people within
ethnic Israel, and in 9:24-29 Paul merges this believing remnant of Jews
with elect Gentiles whom together fulfill the promise of Hosea 1-2a
text originally addressed only to ethnic Israel. Paul labels this new unified
entity "those who are called." It is this group of elect people who experi
ence soteriological "life from the dead" in 11:15 and represent a unified
people whose ethnic distinctions are marginalized, since together they
constitute the branches of one olive tree (ll:l6b-24). The relationship
between Jews and Gentiles according to this view of chap. 11 is that as
the latter come to faith in the Messiah they will incite the former to jeal
ousy, which will bring them to faith and so all will be saved. Accordingly,
in v. 31 the is accepted as a crucial support for reading "all Israels"
salvation in diachronic termsthe "now time" in history.52 In response to
God s mercy being shown to Gentiles "now," Israel will "now" receive mercy.

50)
Krister Stendahl, Final Account: Pauls Letter to the Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1995) 33-44; L. Gaston, "Misstep," 324.
51)
Though see below on n. 54.1 am quite sensitive to the attractiveness of this "two-cove
nant" perspective and I have been heavily influenced by K. Stendahl s work. However, read
ing L. Gaston's ("Misstep") tortured efforts to make this perspective fit with Paul's argument
in chaps. 9-11 has convinced me to look elsewhere for a better read of chaps. 9-11.
52)
Wright, Romans, 694 accepts the bracketed reading, which agrees with his read of
chap. 11.
176 D.A. Kaden /Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 165-182

Despite the cogency of this argument, the dominant perspective among

scholars53 has been what I am calling the "Not Yet." This too is an
umbrella term because it encompasses a broad spectrum of speculations
and interpretations about when and how "all Israel"54 will be saved. In
this view God s righteousness is vindicated because God will eventually
save "all Israel" (11:26); the point of difficulty is the method God uses to
accomplish this salvation. Why has Israel not experienced salvation in the
"now time"?because God has brought a "partial hardening"55 on Israel
while saving Gentiles (11:25). This hardening is intended to bring Gen-
tiles to salvation, which in turn will make Israel jealous and bring those
who are not part of the remnant in 11:1-6 to salvation some time in the

53)
Jewett, Romans, 710; Witherington, Romans, 243-245; Schreiner, Romans, 622;
C. Marvin Pate, The End of the Age Has Come: The Theology of Paul (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1995) 198; John Paul Heil, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Reader-Response
Commentary (New York: Paulist, 1987) 128.
54)
"All Israel's" salvation under this umbrella term has been defined, according to one per-
spective, as a massive conversion of Jews at the Parousia so that it is as if every Jew were
converting; see Schreiner, Romans, 622. The major problem with this view is that it fails to
justify God, so to speak. A large conversion of Jews might be consonant with a presuppo-
sition about future blessings for national Israel the socio-political entity, but if this is what
Paul meant then he created an even larger problem for himself, viz., what about all the
other Jews before that time? Instead of simply solving a mystery (11:25), Paul has created
one! Thus, the most probable interpretation of "all Israel" places the emphasis on the all.
Not just the remnant but every person in Israel who was formerly in unbelief will be saved
in the end. Whether explicit faith in Christ or merely God's electing will (cf. 11:28)
will precipitate this restoration is not completely clear from chap. 11 ; see similarly John
G. Gager, The Origins ofAnti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian
Antiquity (New York and Oxford: Oxford University, 1983) 261-262. Cf. also the sound
argument by Bruce W. Longenecker, "Different Answers to Different Issues: Israel, the
Gentiles, and Salvation History in Romans 9-11," JSNT36 (1989) 95-123. For the related
issue of whether Paul's argument implies universal salvation for every individual without
exception see Sven Hillert, Limited and Universal Salvation: A Text-Oriented and Herme-
neutical Study of Two Perspectives in Paul (Coniectanea Biblica, N T Series 31; Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1999) 234-236. See also Helmut Koester, Introduction
to the New Testament: History and Literature ofEarly Christianity, vol. 2, 2nd ed. (New York
and Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2000) 146. From my perspective Romans 11 seems to
affirm that God's election is inclusive of all members of the two groups of humanity, Jews
and Gentiles. Cf. Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans (New York and Oxford: Oxford
University, 1968) 421. See further below in n. 57.
55)
See Dunn, Theology, 527 for this grammatical issue.
 The Methodological Dilemma of Evaluating the Variation Unit in Romans 11:31 177

56
future concurrent with the Parousia. Two hinge arguments in this per
spective come in v. 11, and w. 12, 15.
In v. 11 Paul asks the rhetorical question: "have they stumbled so as to
57
fall?" If the issue of the timing of Israels salvation rests in part on 11:31,
then the issue of Israels identity rests in large part on this verse and not
9:6 and 11:26 per se. On the one hand, if Paul is still thinking about the
remnant of Jews he has been discussing in the first part of chap. 11, then
the answer to the questionHave they stumbled so as to fall?is clearly
no because the remnant is being saved in the "now time." On the other
hand, if Paul is shifting his argument and beginning to think about the
totality of disobedient Israel in v. 11, then the answer is no because God
intends to save all Israel (11:26). The "Not Yet" view of ch 11 accepts the
latter interpretation on the grounds that it accords better with the remain
der of Pauls argumentespecially w. 12 and 15.
In w. 12 and 15 Paul describes the back and forth relationship between
believing Gentiles and unbelieving Jews. The former are being saved while
the latter have "stumbled." Here is the resulting parallelism:

V. 12: If Israels stumbling now means riches for the Gentiles now
How much more Israels fullness in thejuturel
V. 15: If Israels rejection now means reconciliation for the world now
How much more Israels acceptance in the futureresurrection
for everyone!58

These verses link the salvation of Gentiles with Jewish disobedience in the
"now time," while holding out hope that God will ultimately save this
unbelieving group and so bring future blessings on all, Jews and Gentiles
alike (cf. 11:32). Thus in the "Not Yet" view Israels salvation is some time
in the future, coming on the heels of the fullness of the Gentiles. And this
is the mystery that Paul refers to in 11:25all Israel is saved afier59 the

56)
Schreiner, Romans, 620.
57)
Stanley K. Stowers has made a fascinating point about Paul's footrace metaphor in
chap. 11, noting that the issue is a misstep and not fall. The latter would disqualify the
contestant, while the former would be a mere setback A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews,
and Gentiles [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1994] 312-313).
58)
F. Mussner, "Leben aus Toten (Rom 11,15)," TTZ 112/1 (2003) 74-79 draws atten-
tion to the connection between Paul's language of resurrection here and the restoration of
Israel referred to as a resurrection in Ezekiel's Valley of Dry Bones, Ezek 37.
59)
For a discussion about the temporal phrase beginning 11:26 and its implications for
178 D.A. Kaden I Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 165-182

Gentiles, which is precisely the opposite of what was expected from many
texts in the Hebrew prophets (e.g. Isaiah 2). 60 Therefore, the two most
consistent variant readings within this perspective are either to insert
"in order that, in a little while they may receive mercy"
which, as was suggested above, has the weakest external support, or to
omit the so that the subjunctive verb () can carry a telic61
or even futuristic sense"for the purpose that they may receive mercy"
and thus form a parallel structure with 11:32:

v. 31:
v. 32: iva

In addition to these arguments, there are two other factors that make this
"Not Yet" perspective both the best read of Romans 11, and the best read
of the internal evidence supporting the omission in v. 31: (1) in 9:27 and
in 11:23 Paul uses two third class conditional statements to describe the
fate of Israel. In 9:27 he quotes the third class condition inserted into the
LXX that had effectively reversed the Hebrew contrary to fact conditional
statement in Isa 10:22 (DK + imperfect verbs in the apodosis and prota
sis). The sense of the Hebrew grammar in that verse is: "even if Israels
people were as the sand of the sea (though they never will be) only a rem
nant will return."62 Isaiahs stinging indictment against his own people is
softened in the LXX where the third class condition that Paul quotes
implies that "if the number of the people of Israel were as the sand of the
sea (and this is still a good possibility), the remnant will be saved." This
rhetorical shift in grammar proleptically sets the stage for Pauls use of this
type of conditional statement in 11:23 when he again speaks of Israels
fate. There he writes, "and if they do not remain disobedient, they will be

the argument in w. 26-32, see P.W. van der Horst, "Only Then Will All Israel Be Saved: A
Short Note on the Meaning of in Romans 11.26," JBL 119 (2000) 521-525.
60)
Though Paul would probably not have seen his argument as being inconsistent with
texts like Isaiah 2, since for him Christ represented and embodied Israel in a kind of typi
fied exile-restoration that resulted in the coming in of Gentiles. The "mystery" is that all
of Israel did not join Christ in restoration, but rather fulfilled its mission to the Gentiles
ironically though disobedience that would result in God's showing mercy to all, Jews and
Gentiles alike.
61)
For a good discussion of the telic sense of subjunctive verbs see Daniel B. Wallace,
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 472.
62)
For other occurrences in the HB of this type of conditional statement, see Isa 1:19-20;
Ps 127:1; 132:12; Jer 4:1; 22:4; 23:22; 33:20; Hab 2:3 etc.
 The Methodological Dilemma ofEvaluating the Variation Unit in Romans 11:31 179

grafted back in." Based on the context of chap. 11, this conditional state
63
ment seems to carry a future more probable meaning, and it communi
cates a sense of certaintythose not part of the remnant of Israel will not
remain in disobedience, but will be grafted back in (e.g. they will be
shown mercy in thefuture\ v. 31).
(2) Pauls use of "mercy" throughout chaps. 9-11 is linked with his
concept of God s choice. In chap. 9 this choice distinguishes between
individuals within the ethnic people of Israel. Pauls argument has devel
oped in chap. 11 in such a way, however, that this concept of mercy is no
longer limited but expansive; God s election is not reserved for some indi
viduals throughout history, but is inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles.
Whereas God s mercy was reserved only for the chosen objects of mercy
in 9:23, it expands in an ultimate sense in 11:32 to include everyone.
When read intertextually with a passage like Phil 2:11, Rom 11:31-32
carries a futuristic sense both because of its ultimate/climactic focus,
and because the Parousia of Jesus is intimately linked with this ultimate
history.
Because of these additional two reasons, I am convinced that the vari
ant omission best accounts for the evidence.64 But if this is the case, why
have many scholars determined to include the ; 65 especially since
including this variant makes Paul say that Israel is both disobedient and
receiving mercy "now," which is quite incongruous? The first answer is
that many scholars see a parallel structure in w. 30-31, which would
necessitate its inclusion as was noted above. A second answer is that some
scholars have read the as temporal in the sense of imminence,66
suggesting that the "original" text of Romans probably contained the
because Paul believed the Parousia of Jesus to be imminent. A final answer

63)
See Wallace, Grammar, 696-697.
64)
For other scholars who prefer the omission, see Wilckens, Romer, 261-262; F. Godet,
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, trans. A. Cusin (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1956)415.
65)
E.g. Schreiner, Romans, 630.
66)
Ksemann, Romans, 316; Dunn, Romans, 687; Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul's Letter to the
Romans, A Commentary, trans. Scott J. Hafemann (Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
1994) 174. Despite disagreeing with this perspective, Schreiner {Romans, 628) proposes
virtually the same argument with different terminology: "Paul writes because the sal
vation of the Jews can now occur at any timein that sense it is imminentfor the time
of Gentile disobedience has been replaced by Gentile salvation."
180 D.A. Kaden I Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 165-182

relates to a text critical rule, the more difficult reading is the preferred read
ing A nagging question for this last answer is, difficult for whom?
Clearly the is difficult for modern scholars who read Romans 11 in
a futuristic sense. Yet if the second answer above is partially correct, that
68
Pauls earliest eschatology emphasized the imminence of Christ's return,
then presumably this eschatology was shared by other Christians loyal to
Paul. It would have been these Christians who were responsible for mak
ing the initial copies of Pauls letter to the Romans; they were the first
scribes. For them the smoother reading would have included the ,
because this variant preserves the imminent expectation of Christs return!
For this reason I see the omission as the more difficult reading for the first
copiers of the letter. And the larger point to be made here is that too often
exegetes of Romans 11 have hastily applied the text critical rules when
investigating the MS evidence, while neglecting to apply those same rules
to the transcription or reception of the text in the earliest days of its circula
tion when a variant would most likely have appeared.69 If the omission is
the oldest reading, how can the insertion of the be explained?
Since Romans 9-11 represents Pauls most extended discussion on any
one topic, and since this topic is about relations between Jews and Chris
tians, it would not be surprising if the text that promised future salvation
for national Israel (chap. 11) would suffer corruption during the heat of
Jew-Christian tension in the last half of the first century and early second
century CE. This conflict was multifaceted and seemed to form the back
ground of Pauls letter to the Romans. First, tension between Jews and
Christians already existed in Rome before Paul wrote his letter70 and pre
sumably continued afterward. Second, tensions were emerging in Judea
and Galilee by the late 50 s CE in response to Gaius' plan to erect a statue
in the Temple at Jerusalem. It seems likely that any Jew, whether a fol
lower of Jesus of Nazareth or not, "would feel involved"71 upon hearing of

67)
So Schreiner, Romans, 628.
68)
Gager, Origins, 259.
69)
Epp, "Multivalence," 255; see also the comments of Franois Bovon in "The Synoptic
Gospels and the Noncanonical Acts of the Apostles," HTR 81 (1988) 19-36, 35-36.
70)
Cf. the well-known event recorded by Suetonius {Life ofCkudius 25 A) that the Jews
had been expelled from Rome (ca. 50 CE). He writes, "Because the Jews at Rome caused
continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from
the City." See N.T. Wright, Romans, 620-626 for an overview of the background to chaps.
9-11 including historical data.
71)
Wright, Romans, 623.
 The Methodological Dilemma ofEvaluating the Variation Unit in Romans 11:31 181

these events. It would be natural then for Gentile Christians to distance

themselves from "any sense of complicity with the impending revolt."72 In
addition to providing an impetus for Paul to write his letter to the
Romans, these events undoubtedly would have incited tense feelings
between Jews and Christians in Rome. Third, the text of Romans itself
suggests that tension existed between these two groups. Paul even refers to
some Jews as enemies in 11:28!73 Finally, the later NT writings and other
non-canonical N T writings74 along with various patristic and rabbinic
sources75 verify that by the late first century to the early second century
CE and beyond, Jews and Christians were disputing.76

72)
Ibid.
73)
Gager, Origins, 254.
74)
See the Gospels of Matthew and John, which are particularly hostile to Jews; the vari-
ous conflicts between early Christians and Jews recorded in Acts; the negative pseudo-
Pauline statements about the Jews in 1 Thess 2:14-16, and those attributed to Paul in
2 Thess 1:5-2:12; a Jew-Christian conflict in Asia Minor seems to provide the setting
for the letter of 1 Peter and Johns Revelation; in the noncanonical Gospel of Peter the
Jews are, in effect, responsible for crucifying Jesus; cf. the Epistle of Barnabas; also the
Apocalypse of Peter seems to presume the Bar Kochba revolt in the first third of the
second century CE and the disputes between Jews and Christians that resulted.
For scholars who have noted the anti-Judaic tendencies of the N T and early church
writers, see particularly Rosemary R. Ruether, Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of
Anti-Semitism (New York: Seabury, 1974).
75)
Though see Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70-170 CE (Min-
neapolis: Fortress, 1995) 169, who writes, "Jewish response to the rise of Christianity can
be traced directly to only a few sources."
For Christian patristic sources, see particularly Justin who not only attributes to the
Jews all opposition to Christians, he also notes that the Romans had to constrain these
Jewish hostilities, see Diahgue with Trypho 16.4; 17.1-3; 96.2-3; 108.2-3; 109.1-3; 131.2;
133.6; 136.2; 137.Iff. In Diahgue 17.1 and 47.4, Justin writes about Jewish envoys sent
throughout the Diaspora to warn of the Christian heresy with lettersa practice that may
date back to the last third of the first century CE. See also the Christian perception of
Jewish involvement in Polycarps death, Martyrdom of Polycarp 13.1; 17.1; 18.1. For
sources from a later date, see Tertulliano statement about the "synagogues of the Jews"
being "fountains of persecution," Scorpiace 10, and the comments by Melito of Sardis in
his Passover Homily. "... the King of Israel has been destroyed by the right hand of Israel."
As provocative and passionate as the patristic writers are about Jewish hostility, it should
be remembered that these are engaged writers speaking from a distinctly anti-Jewish side
of the debate.
76)
This ongoing dispute has been labeled the "Parting of the Ways" by James D.G. Dunn
(see the 2nd ed. of his work, The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and
their Significance for the Character of Christianity [London: SCM, 2006]). This label has
been criticized by Judith Lieu; see particularly "'The Parting of the Ways': Theological
182 D.A. Kaden I Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 165-182

Conclusion

Based on this evidence, I would suggest that a variant in 11:31 that could
be read to imply the end of the so-called new covenant for Christians, or
a reading that threatened the perceived privileged place of the church, or
one that indicated the time of the Gentiles' salvation would eventually
come to an end in favor of ethnic Israels salvation, would have been chal
lenged during the time when the text of Romans was "living."77 For this
reason I suggest that the is a secondary addition to v. 31 possibly
reflecting social tensions between Jews and Christians in the late first cen
tury to early second century CE. The other variant was probably
added later to make explicit what some early MSS that did not include
the were implying.

Construct or Historical Reality?" JSNT17 (1995) 101-119. See also the various works by
Mark Nanos who does not dispute the label as much as seeks to define it more precisely
(The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul's Letter [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996]).
77)
Cf. Bart D. Ehrman, "The Text As Window: New Testament Manuscripts and the
Social History of Early Christianity," in Ehrman and Holmes, Text, 366-367. See also
Helmut Koester, "Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century," in William L.
Peterson, ed., Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Trans
mission (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1989) 37, who writes, "not only
minor, but also substantial revisions of the original texts have occurred during the first
hundred years of the transmission."

(
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.