04_Reasoner_388-404 28/10/14 10:43 Pagina 404 404 MARK REASONER stincts about the function of the olive tree in Romans 11 are con- firmed by this broader study of the dissonant intertextuality be- tween Romans 9–11 and Jeremiah. The olive tree example in Rom 11,17-24 has as its main point the “rejuvenation” of ethnic Israel, as do the redemptive inversions of the first scroll of Jeremiah 49. One wonders if the only verbatim quotation from Jeremiah in this section, LXX Jer 38,33a in Rom 11,27, is offered as a resolu- tion to the tensions that the inversions have been arousing in the preceding paragraphs of Romans 9–11. Finally, the letter to the Ro- mans openly joins the prophet it has been allusively inverting and with one voice they declare: “and this will be my covenant with them, when I forgive their sins” 50. Marian University Mark REASONER Indianapolis, IN U.S.A. SUMMARY This article presents seven points of focused dissonance between Jer- emiah and Romans, by identifying how Romans 9–11 inverts the judg- ment language of Jeremiah 1–20 against Judah. Without claiming that the inversions in Romans 9–11 are intentional, the article argues that the in- versions of this section of Jeremiah are similar to the inversions that Deutero-Isaiah performs on this same section of Jeremiah, identified by B. Sommer. The inversions of Jeremiah that occur in Romans 9–11 high- light these chapters’ positive stance toward corporeal, ethnic Israel, and provide another argument against interpreting “all Israel” in Rom 11,26 as the church. 49 A. G. BAXTER - J. A. ZIESLER, “Paul and Arboriculture: Romans 11.17-24”, JSNT 24 (1985) 25-32, especially 29. 50 An earlier version of this paper was presented on November 24, 2002 in the Pauline Epistles section of the AAR-SBL meeting in Toronto. I am in- debted to all those who offered comments there. J. Kaminsky and W. L. Hol- laday read the paper later and contributed very helpful comments. All the mistakes and weaknesses of this paper remain my own responsibility.