This paper revisits the textual variant of Romans 8:28. The issue concerns the addition or omission of ὁ θεός. To determine the original reading, I evaluate both external and internal evidence using Systemic Functional Linguistics.
To identify the variant unit, I apply the rank scale of SFL (Porter and Pitts 2015): (1) πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν: S-P-A (2) πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν: C-SP-A (3) πάντα συνεργεῖ ὁ θεὸς εἰς ἀγαθόν: C-P-S-A. In terms of external evidence, (1) and (2) are supported by a broader range of manuscripts and NA28, UBS5. However, (3) appears in very early and reliable manuscripts such as 𝔓46, B, and A. On the other hand, analysis of internal evidence shows that the version including ὁ θεός is superior in terms of contextual coherence and cohesion.
First, based on Information Structure Analysis (Halliday 2014; Porter and O’Donnell 2024), I conduct Theme-Rheme analysis at the clause-complex level. πάντα can function as the theme, but it cannot serve as the theme for the finite verbs in vv. 29–30. This is because the implied subject of verbs in vv. 29–30 is clearly God. Therefore, vv. 28–30 cannot form a thematic unit and the coherence weakens. However, ὁ θεός can function appropriately as the theme. ὁ θεός directly functions as the theme for all subsequent verbs and contributes to unifying vv. 28–30 into a thematic unit.
Second, based on Cohesive Harmony Analysis (Hasan 1984; Halliday; Porter and O’Donnell), I investigate vv. 28–30 through cohesive chains, chain interaction, and tokens. If πάντα is the agent in v. 28, despite being connected to the Process, Recipient, and Goal tokens of vv. 29–30, fails to form a cohesive chain. It becomes impossible to identify the relationship between πάντα and ἀγαθόν through chain interaction. However, if ὁ θεός is the Agent of v. 28, then the ὁ θεός tokens provide Goal tokens to the Recipient tokens through Material Process tokens. ἀγαθόν (v. 28) functions as a Goal token, connected to δοξάζω. Also, πάντα can be seen as the sum total of all the Processes carried out by God as the Agent.
To summarize, since all the external evidence regarding the clause unit in Romans 8:28 is strong, I focus on internal evidence to determine the original reading. In particular, using SFL’s Information Structure Analysis and Cohesive Harmony Analysis, I argue that the reading with the addition of ὁ θεὸς is more plausible. This also has the effect of clarifying the meaning of ἀγαθόν and πάντα.