Romans 3:9

“`html

body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; color: #333; margin: 0 auto; max-width: 900px; padding: 20px; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #2c3e50; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 30px; }
h3 { margin-top: 25px; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #f0f0f0; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; background-color: #f9f9f9; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
ul li { margin-bottom: 5px; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }
.greek-text { font-family: ‘Gentium Basic’, ‘Palatino Linotype’, ‘Times New Roman’, serif; }

An Exegetical Analysis of Romans 3:9: The Conjunction τε και and the Universal Scope of Sin

This exegetical study of Romans 3:9 is based on a b-greek discussion from Sun Oct 7 06:53:10 EDT 2001. The initial query concerned the interpretation of the Greek conjunction τε και in Romans 3:9, drawing on the grammatical work of W.D. Denniston. One participant suggested that Denniston’s analysis of τε και, meaning “just as much as” or “not only… but also” with potential emphasis on either the first or second element, could lead to a translation of “Jews just as much as Gentiles” for Ἰουδαίους τε καὶ Ἕλληνας, specifically emphasizing “Jews.”

The main exegetical issue under consideration is the precise semantic force and pragmatic implication of the Greek particles τε και in rendering the relationship between “Jews” and “Greeks” within the context of Romans 3:9. This involves discerning whether the construction primarily conveys equality, a subtle hierarchical emphasis, or a general conjunction, and how this impacts the universal scope of sin that Paul articulates. A secondary, yet significant, issue emerging from the discussion involves a textual variant concerning the inclusion or exclusion of the adverb πρωτον (“first”), which would further influence the understanding of priority or emphasis.

Τί οὖν; προεχόμεθα; οὐ πάντως· προητιασάμεθα γὰρ Ἰουδαίους τε καὶ Ἕλληνας πάντας ὑφ’ ἁμαρτίαν εἶναι. (Rom 3:9 Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• The SBLGNT (2010) text for Romans 3:9 is identical to the Nestle 1904 text provided above, specifically lacking the word πρωτον before Ἰουδαίους.

Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

The critical edition NA28 (28th ed.) aligns with both Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 in reading Romans 3:9 without the adverb πρωτον (first). The apparatus for NA28 indicates that Codex Alexandrinus (A) contains πρωτον before Ἰουδαίους. This variant, while significant in its potential semantic impact, is considered a later addition, likely a harmonization with other Pauline passages (e.g., Rom 1:16; 2:9-10) where πρωτον is textually secure and conveys a chronological or preferential order (e.g., “to the Jew first and also to the Greek”). In Romans 3:9, the overwhelming manuscript evidence supports the omission of πρωτον, leading to a focus on the shared status of sin for both groups rather than a chronological priority in culpability.

Lexically, the phrase Ἰουδαίους τε καὶ Ἕλληνας employs two key terms:

• Ἰουδαίους (Ioudaious): According to BDAG, this term refers to “a member of the people of Israel.” In Pauline theology, it often denotes those ethnically and religiously aligned with Judaism, distinguished by their adherence to the Law and covenant.
• Ἕλληνας (Hellēnas): BDAG defines this term broadly, often denoting “one who speaks Greek,” but in a cultural-religious context, it signifies “a non-Jew, Gentile.” In Paul, it serves as the primary antithesis to “Jew,” representing the entirety of the non-Jewish world.
• τε και (te kai): This correlative conjunction functions to connect two elements, indicating a close relationship or association. Denniston notes various nuances, including “just as much as,” “not only… but also,” and simple “both… and.” BDAG highlights its role in connecting “two items as a close unity,” often translated as “both… and.” Its precise semantic force—whether implying equality, a progression, or a specific emphasis—is the crux of the exegetical debate here. KITTEL (TDNT, s.v. τε and και) emphasizes that τε can join items that form a conceptual unit, often with a nuance of “and particularly,” but its primary function in the correlative pair τε και is to present the elements as a complete and exhaustive whole, indicating a comprehensive scope.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The discussion highlights a range of interpretations for τε και in Romans 3:9, each with distinct grammatical and rhetorical implications:

• Emphatic, Non-Neutral Conjunction: One participant, drawing on Denniston, proposed interpretations like “Jews just as much as Gentiles” or “not only Jews but also Gentiles,” suggesting an emphasis on either the first or second element depending on the context. The initial suggestion was to emphasize “Jews.” Another participant favored “not only Jews, but also the Greeks,” seeing it as a valid, albeit slightly stark, interpretation within the Roman context. This view implies that Paul is moving beyond the obvious culpability of Gentiles (already established in Rom 1) to emphatically include Jews, thereby subverting their perceived moral superiority. Grammatically, this leans towards Denniston’s “not only… but also” usage where the second element might receive a heightened, progressive emphasis, especially if Paul is building an argument.
• Inclusiveness and Equality: A different perspective, articulated by a third scholar, argued for rendering τε και “as intensely as possible without emphasizing either of the two elements over the other,” suggesting “Jews no less than Greeks” or “Jews every bit as much as Greeks.” This interpretation prioritizes inclusiveness and rejects any hierarchy, aligning with Paul’s broader theological aim in Romans to demonstrate universal sinfulness (Rom 3:23) and the equal need for grace. This view aligns with Denniston’s “corresponsive” use, where τε και functions essentially as “both… and,” denoting a close, unified coordination without implicit emphasis. This perspective views the phrasing as a strong assertion of shared status rather than a sequential or climactic statement.
• Prominence through Word Order: A participant exploring the linguistic concept of “left prominence” suggested that the item to the left (Ἰουδαίους) generally holds prominence in Χ τε καὶ Υ constructions, though acknowledging that other factors (cultural convention, chronology, known-to-unknown progression) could override this. However, this general principle was challenged by others who argued that “normal” word order in Greek is fluid and that initial positioning does not automatically confer emphasis unless there is a deviation from a “normal” structure. For Romans 3:9, given Paul’s polemical context against Jewish self-righteousness, placing Ἰουδαίους first could be a rhetorical choice to immediately confront his primary audience (or the Jewish perspective) before extending the argument to Ἕλληνας.
• Textual Variant and “Primarily”: One scholar advocated for restoring the reading with πρωτον, found in Codex Alexandrinus, leading to a translation such as “for Jews primarily as well as Greeks…” This introduces a chronological or preferential nuance, suggesting that sin applies “first” to Jews (perhaps in terms of their greater light/responsibility, or chronologically in Paul’s argument) and then to Gentiles. While grammatically plausible if the variant were accepted, its weak external support, and the internal contextual considerations (Paul’s overall argument for universal sin without distinction in culpability for salvation) render it less likely than the shorter reading. The emphasis in Rom 3:9 is on the universal fact of sin, not its sequential application.
• Grammatical Bracketing: The question of how to parse Χ τε καὶ Υ, whether as [[Χ τε] καὶ Υ] (where τε modifies only Χ) or [both [Χ and Υ]] (where “both” modifies the entire coordinated phrase), was raised. While the former suggests a more independent function for τε with the first element, the standard understanding of τε και in koine Greek, particularly in Paul, is as a correlative conjunction linking two terms into a single, cohesive unit, functionally akin to “both… and” in its scope.

Rhetorically, Romans 3:9 concludes Paul’s argument that “all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.” The previous chapters detail the sin of Gentiles (Rom 1:18-32) and Jews (Rom 2:1-29). The purpose of Ἰουδαίους τε καὶ Ἕλληνας is to comprehensively encompass humanity, establishing a universal predicament that necessitates a universal solution in Christ (Rom 3:21ff.). The language aims to dismantle any perceived hierarchy of righteousness, stressing that all stand condemned before God irrespective of ethnic or religious background.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

Considering the robust textual evidence against πρωτον and the grammatical nuances of τε και in Paul’s writings, the most compelling interpretation emphasizes the comprehensive and egalitarian nature of sin’s reach. While grammatical emphasis on the left-hand element can occur, in the context of Paul’s argument for universal culpability, the correlative function of τε και here serves to unite Ἰουδαίους and Ἕλληνας as equally implicated. The rhetorical thrust is not to highlight a specific group’s greater sinfulness or chronological priority, but to underscore that both groups are decisively “under sin,” thereby leveling the playing field before the cross.

Therefore, translations should convey the comprehensive and inclusive scope, asserting that sin affects all humanity without exception or distinction of emphasis:

1. “For we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin.”
   This translation prioritizes the “both… and” function of τε και, explicitly stating the comprehensive inclusion of both groups.
2. “For we have already concluded that Jews no less than Greeks are all under sin.”
   This rendering emphasizes the equality of status in sin, effectively neutralizing any implied hierarchy or emphasis on one group over the other.
3. “For we have already accused all, Jews and also Greeks, of being under sin.”
   This option blends inclusiveness with a slight, natural progression, perhaps implicitly acknowledging the shift in Paul’s argument from Gentile sin to Jewish sin, but maintaining overall equality in the state of being “under sin.”

“`