[B-Greek] Romans 8.28, PANTA SUNERGEI

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Dec 7 13:54:35 EST 2007


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Porter" <app at jedp.com>
>
> In the UBS 3rd ed.,
> Romans 8.28 has
>
> PANTA SUNERGEI EIS AGAQON,
> Sinaiticus, C, and D
> PANTA SUNERGEI hO QEOS EIS AGAQON ...,
> p46, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus;
> -- they give it a C reading,
> i.e., not much confidence in the shorter reading
>
> The question: what to do with the <PANTA>, presumably neuter plural, nom/acc,
> together with SUNERGEI, presumably 3rd pers. singular, present indicative?
>
> The subject of SUNERGEI is
> (implicit) hO QEOS (aleph, C, D),
> explicit hO QEOS (p46, A, B),
>
> Can SUNERGEI take an object (in the accusative),
> here PANTA, in addition to the usual object (in the dative),
> the beneficiaries (here TOIS AGAPWSIN TON QEON) of the working-together?
> As in
> he works all things together for those who love him?
> -- odd in English, and colloquial, but quite clear?
>
> All three possibilities appear in translations:
>
> Jerusalem Bible:
> ``by turning everthing to their good
> God co-operates with all those who love him,''
> The King James has
> ``all things work together for good to them that love God.''
> RSV has
> ``in everything God works for good with those who love him''

Although this has been discussed before, I'd like to add a few comments from a discourse linguistics 
point of view.
One sub discipline in discourse studies is participant reference. There are four ways of referring 
to a participant and they operate on four levels of specificity:
1. A proper name - most specific, no doubt about who the referent is
2. A nominal phrase - less specific. It describes the participant, but several people might fit the 
description.
3. Pronoun or pronominal affix - least specific, the referent is largely decided by preceding 
context, especially level 1 or 2 words.
4. Zero marker - only the context will identify the participant

In addition, we distinguish between introducing participants and tracking participants once they are 
introduced. Participants are often introduced first by a descriptive phrase - level 2 - and then 
also often by a name - level 1. After a participant has been introduced in the story, that 
participant is tracked by the lowest level possible which does not give rise to ambiguity. For 
instance, if both a Peter and Mary are introduced as participants, they may be tracked by a level 3 
"he" and "she" in English or other languages with gender specific pronouns, while a level 2 
reference is needed in languages without gender specific pronouns.

Another aspect is the function of DE, and there are several of them in Rom 8:26-30. In v. 26 DE 
introduces a new development or a new paragraph and the participant (subject) is introduced by a 
level 2 noun that here functions as a proper name on level 1: the (Holy) Spirit - PNEUMA. The other 
participant "us" is carried over from the previous paragraph, so only a level 3 pronoun - hHMWN - is 
required. In v. 27 the DE functions as a switch reference, because it follows the definite article. 
This means that the subject is changed from TO PNEUMA to hO ERAUNWN TAS KARDIAS. The one who 
searches the hearts is a clear reference to God in a Biblical context. Because of that background 
context, a level 2 reference is adequate.
Maybe I should quote the whole of verse 27:
hO DE ERAUNWN TAS KARDIAS OIDEN TI TO FRONHMA TOU PNEUMATOS, hOTI KATA QEON ENTUGCANEI hUPER hAGIWN.
The Sprit is referred to at level 2 inside a genitive and a level 3 when he is subject of the verb 
ENTUGCANEI. Notice that the subject for this verb is not the same as the subject in the previous 
clause, but rather the same referent as in the genitive PNEUMATOS. hAGIWN is used because it is not 
only "us", but Christians in general.
v 28 says:
OIDAMEN DE hOTI TOIS AGAPWSIN TON QEON PANTA SUNERGEI EIS AGATON, TOIS KATA PROQESIN KLHTOIS OUSIN
v 29 says: hOTI hOUS PROEGNW KAI PROWRISEN...
The DE here is not a switch reference, but a new development, a new paragraph. The topic is no 
longer what the Spirit does for us, but what God does and has done. Therefore, the Spirit cannot be 
subject for SUNERGEI. The hOTI in 29 indicates a close logical connection between v. 28 and 29-30, 
whereas the DE indicates a break between 27 and 28.
"we" continue to be referred to with the a level 3 pronoun, since there is no problem with 
identification. A new participant is introduced at level 2: those who love God. The subject of 
SUNERGEI is what is in dispute. The rest of the verbs through v. 30 all have God as implicit 
subject, but he is referred to with a level 3 pronominal reference throughout, except the zero 
reference at PROQESIN.
Level 3 pronominals suggest that they refer to the last level 2 word mentioned that is a viable 
candidate. Therefore, it is most likely that God is the subject for SUNERGEI. If PANTA had been the 
subject, I would have expected a higher level reference at PROQESIN and especially at PROEGNW. I 
suspect the reason that QEOS is not used, is because QEON occurred as object for AGAPWSIN, and this 
is enough to put God on the scene in the mind of the reader. Some scribes apparently preferred to 
make explicit the implicit subject for SUNERGEI, which is QEOS. This indicates that they understood 
QEOS to be the intended subject, even though it was not explicitly stated, but carried over from two 
words earlier. It is not important that QEOS occurs in the accusative as object, since he is put on 
the scene just by being mentioned. I believe the same applies to the English sentence: "We know that 
for those who love God, he works towards the good in all things." Is the "he" not clearly understood 
to refer to God? Would it not be using too high a level for the referent to say: ""We know that for 
those who love God, God works towards the good in all things."

The accusative PANTA is explained in BAGD as "accusative of specification" under entry SUNERGEW.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list