04_Reasoner_388-404 28/10/14 10:43 Pagina 397 THE REDEMPTIVE INVERSIONS OF JEREMIAH IN ROMANS 9–11 397 Paul always employs images and terms from his scriptures to score the same points they do in their original contexts. The link to a Syn- agogue of the Olive in Rome that Davies also rejects may also be at work here, as well as a correction of Gentile pride by describing the Gentile olive branches as wild and hence unfruitful 28. My study of the relationship between Jeremiah 1–20 and Romans 9–11 does not silence the other echoes that exegetes have heard resonating in Paul’s olive tree metaphor. Indeed, given the way that Paul trans- forms the peace propaganda of imperial Rome in this letter, the olive branch’s signification of peace should not be overlooked 29. My argument in this article is that in Romans 9–11 some dissonant intertextuality is definitely happening in relation to Jeremiah 1–20. This thesis includes a claim that the olive tree metaphor in Rom 11,17-24 must be read alongside the olive tree metaphor of Jer 11,16. II. The Anxiety of Influence Verbatim quotations are one of the few ways one could argue for intentional inversion, or the conscious outworking of an anxiety of influence. In most of Romans 9–11 Paul does not quote from Jeremiah in this way, and in any event I am not identifying and can- not prove that the seven, mostly dissonant connections listed above between Jeremiah 1–20 and Romans 9–11 are conscious, inten- tional inversions. Still, we must ask what is going on between the 28 W.D. DAVIES, “Paul and the Gentiles: A Suggestion concerning Romans 11:13-24”, Jewish and Pauline Studies (ed. W.D. DAVIES ) (Philadelphia, PA 1984) 158-161; “In Jer 11:16-17 the olive becomes an object of the divine judgment — a motif alien to Paul’s purpose in Rom 11:17” (159). P. LAMPE (From Paul to Valentinus. Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries [trans. M. Steinhauser; ed. M. D. JOHNSON; Minneapolis, MN 2003] 431 n. 10) offers CIG 9904; CIJ 1:281; 509 as evidence for a sunagwgh. E v lai,aj in Rome. 29 On peace as a theologoumenon in Romans see K. HAACKER, “Der Römerbrief als Friedensmemorandum”, NTS 36 (1990) 25-41; idem, The The- ology of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Cambridge 2003) 45-53; as a transfor- mation of imperial peace propaganda, ibid. 116-19. On the olive branch as a sign of peace, see M. KOZAKIEWICZ, “Appendix: The Headgear of the Female Statue”, Subject and Ruler. The Cult of the Ruling Power in Classical Anti- quity (ed. A. SMALL) (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series 17; Ann Arbor, MI 1996) 137, and Octavian’s coins in Roman Imperial Coinage I, 59 no. 252 pl. 5 and no. 253.