512 Mark S. Gignilliat Every major commentator on this verse has a certain angle on this issue, with the majority of scholars recognizing the ambiguous nature of the verb and its subject settling with option three. Without rehearsing the arguments in detail, pavnta as the subject of the sunergei' is understood as the most natural way of reading the verse. The text-critical argument typically follows this line of reasoning. The shorter reading, where qeov" is omitted, is supported ˜ a by C D F G Y and the Latin, Syriac, and Bohairic traditions. This is weighty textual evidence and is not to be taken lightly (5). The longer reading, where qeov" comes after the verb, is supported by ∏46 A B 81 sa (Coptic) and Origen. Again, these are very good and ancient mss and also should not be taken lightly (6). The shorter reading is more attested and falls under the text- critical criterion brevior lectio probabilior (7). On this basis, commentators tend to side with the shorter reading and understand pavnta as the subject because it represents the path of least resistance. But the jury is still out on many of these issues and the tension is often felt when reading commentators’ reflections on the subject (8). For example, in Keck’s recent and well-received commentary on Romans, he states rather matter-of-factly, “Of these, ‘all things’ is the least probable (though preferred by Moo [1996] and defended by Cranfield [1975])” (9). In other words, this text is a classic example where text-critical arguments and internal evidence may be at loggerheads. * ** The problem, in this author’s estimation, resides precisely with the sun of the sunergei'. Mindful of Cranfield’s warning about relying on the etymology of this verb over against its context, one could argue that this particular verb, at least within the Pauline corpus, carries the idea of agents working together. This is especially seen in the following: 1 Cor 16,16; 2 Cor 6,1. Gieniusz observes that all the compounds with sun- in 8,18-30 are associated with the idea of “together with” (10). As will be shown, this is the case in Rom 8,28 as —————— Neotestamentica et Patristica. Eine Freundesgabe, Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60 Geburstag Überreicht (ed.) (SNT 6; Leiden 1962) 166-72. This may be the least plausible understanding because of the contextual difficulties of vv. 29-30 where God is clearly the subject. See A. GIENIUSZ, C. R., Romans 8:18-30: “Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory” (University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism; Atlanta 1999) 255. (5) See B. METZGER, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart 1994) 458. (6) See the comment in the lexical entry for sunergei' in BDAG, 969. Matthew Black makes the rather odd argument that oJ qeov" is a difficult reading because it “immediately” follows toi'" ajgapw'sin to;n qeovn. Black states that Paul is surely not so poor a stylist as to make this mistake (BLACK, “The Interpretation of Romans viii 28”, 168.) But oJ qeov" does not “immediately” follow to;n qeo;n. Rather, it follows pavnta sunergei' in the mss supporting this reading (cf. Rom 8,33). (7) It should be noted that Sanday and Headlam prefer the reading oJ qeov" because it is deemed the lectio difficilior. W. SANDAY – A. HEADLAM, Romans (ICC; Edinburgh 1980) 215. (8) See the comments by MORRIS, Romans (PNTC; Grand Rapids 1988) 330-331. (9) L. KECK, Romans (ANTC; Nashville 2005) 216. (10) GIENIUSZ, Romans 8:18-30, 257. This at least calls into question the following statement by Lohse: “Im Verb sunergei'n liegt kein Ton auf sun- (Zusammenwirken von