Firstly, I am hoping that this post will turn into a research lead for someone who can find out more about this subject. And I humbly ask that you please share with me anything you can find if you do look into this. The information I am sharing here should be interesting to anyone who loves God's word.
I've been studying what I can from the Coptic - English translations of the Bible. I find this to be fascinating and have become somewhat addicted. The most interesting part is that the Coptic books of the bible come from some of the oldest known manuscripts. I also find it interesting that this field of study is neglected. It should not be. All fragments of Coptic manuscripts need to be studied and compared to other manuscripts. It just may be that they turn out to be BETTER and MORE RELIABLE than other manuscripts due to age.
I posted recently about the Book of JOB from the Coptic, translated by Henry Tattam (1788 – 1868) who was a well-educated leader within the church of England and renowned expert in the field of ancient Coptic and Egyptian (which is synonymous with the word "Coptic") manuscripts. The term "Coptic" comes from the Greek to Arabic line and translates "GYPT" from Egypt (dropping the "E" which is simply the definite article from old Egyptian language) and makes it simple "GOBT". English then makes it "Copt". "Egypt" comes from The Latin the English line.
Tattam writes in the introduction of his translation of Job: "It may perhaps be sufficient to state here, that the Coptic Version of the Scriptures was made at a very early period of the Christian era. This Version of the Old Testament, like all the other ancient Versions of it, was made from the Greek Text, and not from the original Hebrew."
And as I posted previously, Job 1:6 reads "angels of God" rather than "sons of God". The latter the source of much controversy and debate. AND, if I may say plainly, has been the source of many widespread HERETICAL teachings.
But now to the focus of this new post; The Coptic Version of the NEW Testament in the Southern dialect (otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic), edited by George William Horner (1849–1930) is lacking the controversial Romans 13:1-6. I find it fascinating that this exact portion, which has been the subject of so much controversy, is wanting in this ancient Coptic text!
And unfortunately, due to the sparse commentary on the Coptic versions of the Bible, I cannot say anymore right now. But wikipedia says this about Romans 13:1-7 (please view their entry for citations and sources @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romans_13 ):
"According to biblical scholars John Barton and John Muddiman:
Few if any passages in the Pauline corpus have been more subject to abuse than w. 1–7. Paul does not indicate that one is required to obey public officials under all circumstances, nor does he say that every exercise of civil authority is sanctioned by God. No particular government is authorized; no universal autarchy is legitimated. Instead, Paul reiterates the common Jewish view that human governance operates under God's superintendency (Jn 19:11; Dan 2:21; Prov 8:15—16; Isa 45:1—3; Wis 6:3), that it is part of the divine order and so is meant for human good (i Pet 2:13–14; Ep. Arist. 291–2).[12]
Romans 13 is from time to time employed in civil discourse and by politicians and philosophers in support of or against political issues. Two conflicting arguments are made: that the passage mandates obedience to civil law; and that there are limits to authority beyond which obedience is not required. John Calvin, in Institutes of the Christian Religion[13] took the latter position: "that we might not yield a slavish obedience to the depraved wishes of men". Martin Luther employed Romans 13 in Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants[14] to advocate that it would be sinful for a prince or lord not to use force, including violent force, to fulfil the duties of their office.[15]
Theologian Paul Tillich is critical of an interpretation that would cast Romans 13:1-7 in opposition to revolutionary movements:
One of the many politico-theological abuses of biblical statements is the understanding of Paul’s words [Romans 13:1-7] as justifying the anti-revolutionary bias of some churches, particularly the Lutheran. But neither these words nor any other New Testament statement deals with the methods of gaining political power. In Romans, Paul is addressing eschatological enthusiasts, not a revolutionary political movement.[16]
Romans 13 was used during the period of the American Revolution, by loyalists who preached obedience to the Crown; and by revolutionaries who argued for elimination of the unjust authority of the King. Later in US history, Romans 13 was employed by anti-abolitionists to justify and legitimise (sic) the keeping of slaves; notably around the time of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 which precipitated debate as to whether the law should be obeyed or resisted.[15] It was also used by the Dutch Reformed Church to justify apartheid rule in South Africa.[17][18]
In June 2018, Romans 13 was used by Jeff Sessions to justify the Trump administration family separation policy, saying:[15][19][20]
I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.[21]
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, echoed Sessions' use of Romans 13, stating:
I’m not aware of the attorney general’s comments or what he would be referencing, [but] I can say that it is very biblical to enforce the law. That is repeated throughout the Bible.[21]
Commenting on the fight to define Romans 13, Lincoln Mullen argues that "what the attorney general actually has on his side is the thread of American history that justifies oppression and domination in the name of law and order."
Tommy Richards
https://septuagint-lxx.com
https://spirituallysmart.com
