This study divides itself into three parts the opening chapter sets out the textual position. Most of the material here is well known, but additions to it can still be made. Since text, as a selection from a group of variants, and interpretation, as a justification and understanding of that selection, are always associated both in method and in exegesis, (^1) the first chapter also presents an attempt to trace the history of the interpretation of Romans 12.11c, particularly in its earlier, less well-known stages and particularly where is read. The second chapter, the backbone of the thesis, presents in detail the lexical materials, which show how often appears in other writers in company with one or other of the words found in the Pauline context (especially in vv. 11-13) or with their cognates. My conclusion can be put in this interrogatory form: If this word occurs elsewhere in Greek literature (and with necessary changes in Latin literature) in similar company, should we not reconsider the possibility of it's originality in Romans 12.11c? Chapter three assumes this originality and suggests an exegesis of Romans 12 which gives its proper weight within its context, especially within chapters 11-15.