Romans 5:1

 “Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,”

‭‭Romans‬ ‭5‬:‭1‬ ‭NET‬‬

The NET has translated the verb “have peace” as an indicative, a statement of fact. The Greek manuscripts are divided whether the verb was indicative (ἔχομεν) or subjunctive (ἔχωμεν). As you can see, the only difference is the middle letter, and both letters have an “o” sound. The former is a short “o”, while the latter is the long “o.” The subjunctive is used in sentences of probability or wish. It can be used in conditional sentences or even strong suggestion/imperative (“Let us do x”). Whatever the original text had does not affect doctrine or even practice of the believer, but since manuscripts are so evenly divided, this is one of the texts where scholars can focus.

External evidence (major witnesses): See my recommended sites. If you have any interest at all, you can find most of these on www.csntm.org, and you will be able to see the different “o” in the manuscripts.

For the indicative: א B F G P Ψ 0220 104 365 1241 1505 1506 1739 1881 2464 pm

For the subjunctive: א* A B* C D K L 33 81 630 1175 1739* pm lat bo

Most scholars think the external evidence favors the subjunctive, “Let us have peace.” So why would the NET (and others) translate as if the indicative were original?

1. It depends on one’s theory of textual criticism and what one values (see other posts on these approaches). Many scholars at least take a look at the earliest witness (doesn’t guarantee it’s correct). In this case, 0220 (3rd century) has the indicative. This is our earliest manuscript for Romans.

2. Manuscripts were often corrected, which is the asterisk on the different symbols sometimes. These don’t always mean the manuscript is of less importance. They can be of equal value. So the original and corrected Sinaiticus are split on the reading. It’s a wash at this point. If anything it decreases the odds of the subjunctive being original.

3. Multiple text types represent the indicative. This means the reading logically goes back fairly early. Alexandrian (in 0220, probably א1241 1506 1881 al), Western (in F G), and Byzantine (noted in NA as pm). 

4. Regardless of which variant is the error, we have to account for the other reading. Either the indicative or subjunctive probably arose as a result of a hearing error on the part of a scribe. Again, this doesn’t tell us which is wrong, but that it was an easy error to make either way.

5. Most know of Paul’s general structure of his books: doctrine then application. This would mean statements/indicatives. Than commands or imperatives. There has only been one imperative in Romans to this point (per the NET), and that was used rhetorically. There has only been one subjunctive used as a command, and that in an OT quotation. After chapter 6, there are over 60 imperatives. A command here would be out of place.

The subjunctive does have much support from the manuscripts, but the “let us have peace” doesn’t fit with Paul’s arguments. Others try to force a “let us enjoy the peace we have” meaning onto the subjunctive, but see Wallace’s grammar (ExSyn, 464) why that is no good, either. The indicative has both external support and makes the most internal, logical sense with Paul’s argument.