Ep. 277 Lawrence Ludlow on Romans 13 Being Spiritual not Political
Lawrence Ludlow has an MA in medieval studies and gives Bob numerous lines of evidence to suggest that Paul in Romans 13 is referring to spiritual authorities rather than political ones. In this interpretation, there is no tension between the New Testament and standard libertarianism.
Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:
- The YouTube version of this interview.
- Norman Horn on the BMS to talk Romans 13.
- Jeff Barr’s analysis of “Render unto Caesar.”
- A History of the Bible. A book on the transmission of the New Testament.
- Help support the Bob Murphy Show.
The audio production for this episode was provided by Podsworth Media.
About the author, Robert
Christian and economist, Chief Economist at infineo, and Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute.
It was a great honor to be a guest on Bob’s show. I hope people can benefit from this explanation of how a Caesaropapism-style pro-govt interpretation has dominated the use and understanding of this text for far too long. The manuscript tradition (the physical appearance of these texts) and the text itself do not support the pro-govt understanding of this text.
I really enjoyed your conversation! You provided so many valuable insights! I really admire your knowledge of the relevant languages and texts. I looked to connect with you on LinkedIn but couldn’t find you.
Thank you for this appreciation. I’m very please that you were able to benefit. I pulled my bio off of LinkedIn some time ago because I was starting to get a Facebook vibe from it.
You may enjoy reading about Gutenberg and the invention of moveable type from an article I wrote back in 2008. My essays were all written under my full name with the middle initial — Lawrence M. Ludlow — whether about Gutenberg, Dante, or in book reviews about medieval Genoa or H. L. Mencken among other things.
I am on Twitter in a very small (and sometimes harsh) way as Laurentius Ridens – https://twitter.com/LawrenceMLudlow
[I left a lengthy comment on this podcast over on YouTube. If you prefer to keep comments on this site shorter, you may retain just these bracketed remarks noting that my comment on YouTube may be found @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkmdY86q1lA&lc=UgxhCj6pRD6YpG0vn1l4AaABAg. In case comment length does not concern you, I’ve also pasted my full YouTube comment below. — DMH]
I know you can only scratch the surface and give a basic overview of a perspective in an hour-long podcast. So I’ll need to follow some links and dig into more material before I make a final decision. Based just on this podcast, however, this interpretation seems very strained and “too clever by half.” Since all generations of believers since Paul wrote the passage have been alike indwelt by the Holy Spirit, highly novel interpretations by individuals in modern times have to be approached with suspicion. Has your guest’s interpretation ever been even a significant strand of minority opinion among God’s Spirit-indwelt people?
So far as my finite knowledge indicates, this way of reading Romans 13 is entirely new. And, though your guest has expertise in medieval studies, I did not hear him describe this view being taught by any medieval Christians. Cleverness and inventiveness are rarely helpful qualities if one’s goal is faithful and orthodox interpretation of God’s inspired and preserved words. At this late date in church history, any interpretation without precedent will need to be, not just plausible in a marginal way, but virtually undeniable in light of the biblical text. Your guest’s reading doesn’t come anywhere near this.
Matthew Henry explains in his remarks on Romans 13 why Paul would segue from living peaceably with others and not taking personal vengeance to duties toward and divine authorization of civil magistrates: “The apostle had taught us, in the foregoing chapter, not to avenge ourselves, nor to recompense evil for evil; but, lest it should seem as if this did cancel the ordinance of a civil magistracy among Christians, he takes occasion to assert the necessity of it, and of the due infliction of punishment upon evil doers, however it may look like recompensing evil for evil.”
Some further of Henry’s remarks may merit quotation: “The duty enjoined: Let every soul be subject. Every soul — every person, one as well as another, not excluding the clergy, who call themselves spiritual persons, however the church of Rome may not only exempt such from subjection to the civil powers, but place them in authority above them, making the greatest princes subject to the pope, who thus exalteth himself above all that is called God. — Every soul. Not that our consciences are to be subjected to the will of any man. It is God’s prerogative to make laws immediately to bind conscience, and we must render to God the things that are God’s. But it intimates that our subjection must be free and voluntary, sincere and hearty. Curse not the king, no, not in thy thought, [Ecclesiastes 10:20]….The subjection of soul here required includes inward honour [1 Peter 2:17] and outward reverence and respect, both in speaking to them and in speaking of them — obedience to their commands in things lawful and honest….”
Now, Henry seems to read into rather than exegete the text when he adds after this “and in other things a patient subjection to the penalty without resistance,” but his reasoning seems biblically sound through “things lawful and honest.” He also confirms that reading “soul” to mean “person” rather than “immaterial spirit” is most natural. In fact, the tendency to take “soul” to refer to something other than the entire person is a tendency borne more out of the influence of Platonism and Gnosticism in Western thought than out of Scripture. It’s highly implausible that Paul meant something other than just “person” or “individual” here.
Though I have not reviewed the Sproll lectures you refer to, I suspect his view will hew closely to Henry’s. They are in the same confessional tradition. So I won’t quote further from Henry’s commentary. As a work in the public domain, it is freely available from many sources, should anyone wish to study it further.
The relevant chapter of my own confessional standard, the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 (LBC), covers this topic of the civil government with great concision:
*** begin quote ****
Chapter 24
OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE
[1] God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, for his own glory and the public good; and to this end has armed them with the power of the sword, for defence and encouragement of them that do good, and for the punishment of evil doers. [Romans 13:1-4]
[2] It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto; in the management whereof, as they ought especially to maintain justice and peace, [2 Samuel 23:3; Psalm 82:3,4] according to the wholesome laws of each kingdom and commonwealth, so for that end they may lawfully now, under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions. [Luke 3,14]
[3] Civil magistrates being set up by God for the ends aforesaid; subjection, in all lawful things commanded by them, ought to be yielded by us in the Lord, not only for wrath, but for conscience’ sake; [Romans 13:5-7; 1 Peter 2:17] and we ought to make supplications and prayers for kings and all that are in authority, that under them we may live a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty. [1 Timothy 2:1,2]
*** end quote ***
Just as Henry restricts required obedience to “things lawful and honest,” the LBC restricts it to “the wholesome laws” and “all lawful things.” Neither Henry’s more Puritan side of the tradition nor the LBC’s Baptist side proposes absolute obedience. The higher moral law of God revealed in Scripture, which seems the only standard available by which to judge civil laws “lawful and honest” or “wholesome,” places a limit on required, and even on permitted, obedience to government. Christians obedient to Scripture may not comply with the wishes of secular governments that act contrary to the moral law of God. I think this principle gives you the “out” from immoral obedience that you’ve sought to justify with your guest’s implausible interpretation.
To put it another way, Romans 13’s identification of (in the traditional, long-established understanding) civil magistrates as servants of God who punish only evildoers is normative guidance for all magistrates. That is, civil governing authorities are legitimate and to be obeyed only insofar as they rule in accord with God’s authority (God’s moral law). This makes Christian defiance of laws not in accord with God’s law not only permissible but often mandatory.
In the case of America, since our supreme governing authority is the Constitution (we’re a Lex Rex [the law is king] commonwealth), we are certainly not obligated to submit to unconstitutional directives from governing officials. These officials are not “the powers that be” for us. The power demanding our allegiance in this country is the U.S. Constitution and the philosophy of God-given or natural rights undergirding our nation’s founding. Since an aspect of this philosophy is the Lockean self-ownership of which libertarians are so fond, our founding philosophy is fundamentally libertarian, though I don’t think it comports well with, say, all-government-is-evil anarchism. “Nightwatchman state” minarchism, however, should be fine.
To summarize: natural rights and the U.S. Constitution are king in America. When governing officials here act against that king, bring on the nullification*!
*https://www.youtube.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter
Your comment merely repeats what Bob and I noted in the podcast — that once Christianity became legal with the Edict of Milan, religious leaders adopted a compliancy-based approach that suggested obedience as long as civic leaders didn’t demand contravention of Christian practices. So what’s new here other than that you used 20 times as many words with this cut-and-paste?
Not sure I agree with the comment on manuscript transmission. Jerome had good manuscripts of the day. But today we actually have more to base translations on. The number of manuscripts out there is not a problem but an advantage.
I totally agree with the comment about there being no break in text from chapter to chapter. Reading Romans 12 into 13 shows proper context. He also does a good job on the Greek definitions. I also agree that RC Sproul’s interpretation misses the mark, but I can’t go so far as to apply the whole thing to the spiritual realm. It talks about the sword. I went into the Greek even further in the link and try to think through who or what the authorities are in our American context.
https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-church-and-state-in-romans-13.html
I would be very interested in discovering your reason for being unsure about agreeing with my comment on manuscript transmission and Jerome’s access to superior manuscripts. Here’s why. Of the Greek 5,735 manuscripts recorded by Professor Bruce Metzger (Princeton Theological Seminary), the breakdown is as follows:
– 116 are papyri, usually only fragments (the oldest existing texts usually)
– 310 are Greek majuscules/uncials, with only 5% to 8% written at or before Jerome’s time
– The rest are minuscule manuscripts (2,877) or from lectionaries (2,432) — all much later.
Under 3 other listings available on the internet (I’ll insert the links later), we see the following breakdown:
– 141 papyri, again usually fragments (the oldest)
– 324 key uncial/majuscule manuscripts, but only 29 of them from Jerome’s time or earlier
– 3,017 minuscule manuscripts, again, much later
To give you your due, I acknowledge that many manuscripts created from the 5th through 10th centuries may indeed have been copied from superior texts, but the number of superior quality Alexandrian and Western texts [problematic in many cases] from which they were copied is small indeed. These may, however, have been treasured fine manuscripts saved during the Carolingian copying period.
Now consider. Jerome had a vast correspondence as did Augustine — sometimes with each other. Jerome was able to write letters in search of quality manuscripts from every major Mediterranean source. Doing this at the close of the 4th century gave him an advantage we’ll never have — access to 3rd- and even 2nd-century texts, complete, not fragmentary.
It is true that we have vastly better analytical tools now available, and some of the later MSS copies may have had fine sources, but really, and I hate to say it, but the vast increase in quantity makes the analysis far more problematic because most of this vast quantity is highly “processed” (i.e., derivative and “smoothed out textually” copies. Not useful at all. Moreover, Jerome was not an easily pleased fellow. Anyone who has read a good sample of his critique of scriptural passages knows this. He was in a position to know what was good quality and what was questionable.
Thank you for your interest, and now some links to materials gathered from Gregory-Aland and other sources beyond the printed Metzger sources upon which I usually rely (oddly someone took the time to put them on Wikipedia!):
– Manuscript types by category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts
– Papyrus manuscripts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri
– Majuscule/uncial manuscripts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_uncials
– Minuscule manuscripts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_New_Testament_minuscules
It’s not clear that more manuscripts = more good information. Let’s take a look at why this is so. Granted, I am going to use a crude methodology, but to get any more detailed, I’d have to have a much greater knowledge of this, and I’m going to insert a big fudge factor later that I hope will render this method less useless.
THE NUMBER OF TEXTS
Bruce Metzger (deceased, Princeton Theological Seminary) documents the existing trove of New Testament texts as follows:
• Papyri: 116 – about two-thirds of which are dated before 400 AD, i.e., about 260.
• Majuscule/uncial MSS: 310 – about 30 of which are dated before 400 AD.
• Minuscule MSS: 2877 – most of which are after the 10th century.
• Lectionary MSS: 2432 – most of which are after the 10th century.
So, we have a total of 5,735 manuscripts of the New Testament – i.e., more by a factor 100 to 1000 compared to the surviving number of classical texts that document so-called “secular” facts. But that’s beside the point. These texts are NOT – by any means – all equal if quality.
WHICH TEXTS ARE MOST VALUABLE?
First of all, minuscule manuscripts were created at the time of or after Charlemagne’s era. So, they do not have the advantage of being early texts – even though it is true that many of them may have been copies from high-quality, revered ancient manuscripts. But at best, the minuscules are problematic and require individual assessment.
Secondly, like the minuscule manuscripts, nearly all of the lectionary MSS are in minuscule text – that is, they were created at the time of or after Charlemagne’s era. So, they do not have the advantage of being early texts – even though it is true that many of them may have been copies from high-quality, revered ancient manuscripts. But at best, the minuscules are problematic and require individual assessment.
Thirdly, the papyri manuscripts – although the oldest by far – are nearly always fragments. So even though they have a text-check value against more recent texts, they are not going to give a comprehensive picture of the full text.
Finally, the majuscule/uncial texts are by far the most complete texts and therefore the most useful. Furthermore, they tend to be quite old, although not as old as the papyrus texts.
COUNT OF “GOOD” AND “PRE-400 AD” TEXTS
The result? I’m going to posit that our best major source of complete texts is limited to the majuscules/uncials dated to 400 AD and before – sources that Jerome may have accessed in his Vulgate translation. These are the oldest texts and possibly the most useful. The total here is only about 30 manuscripts – 30.
As for papyrus manuscripts, it’s possible, even likely, that Jerome had access to these. We have less than 100 dated before 400 AD.
So, in current numbers, our very oldest manuscripts (before 400 AD) total to less than 130 (papyrus plus uncials). That’s 130 out of a total of 5,735. Only 23%!
Many of the later uncials and many of the minuscule texts may have been copied from high-quality texts (I can’t comment without spending many days on this), but let’s consider what percentage of the most important texts can be considered “high quality” by New Testament text analysts like Kurt Aland (and Barbara Aland). Out of the subset of 555 texts that they considered, important (only a fraction of total available texts), they have grouped the texts into five categories as follows:
• TYPE 1. ALEXANDRIAN. 64 texts. The most highly regarded of the Greek uncial/majuscule texts are those of the broad category sometimes called “Alexandrian” type, which means, in part, that they are not.
• TYPE 2. EGYPTIAN. 109 texts. These are still considered important but have evidence of “alien” influences of the Byzantine type.
• TYPE 3. ECLECTIC. 258 texts. These are still considered important but have evidence of “alien” influences.
• TYPE 4. WESTERN. 5 texts. These problematic texts have paraphrases and additions, yet preserve atypical readings that can at times prove valuable.
• TYPE 5. BYZANTINE. 119 texts. These texts are later (after 305 AD or the persecution of Diocletian), and reveal a greater degree of being “processed” or “smoothed” or “homogenized” to remove or explain problematic, but probably authentic readings. So, they are considered to have less textual value.
Of all the limited number of texts of the New Testament that the Alands considered, only 64 of them are Type 1 (Alexandrian) texts – the highest-quality text by far. Of these, only 47 can be dated to 400 AD or before! So less than 10% of the current total of manuscripts were considered “important” by the Alands.
Again, less than 10% of currently surviving manuscripts are “important.” (555 out of 5,735)
Only 16% of important MSS are Type I.
Only 8% of important MSS are Type I dated before 400 AD.
After 400 AD, only 17 type I texts exist – about 3% of the 555 texts.
So, if only 3% of texts dated after 400 AD can be considered “important,” let’s apply this figure to the total number of manuscripts – the 5,735 in the tally of Metzger and Ehrman. That’s 172 manuscripts.
How many possible manuscripts did Jerome have in his time? We don’t know. But of those surviving we can tell the following:
Jerome’s maximum possible number of available manuscripts that currently survive from his time is about 130. That is only 2% of the total number of manuscripts surviving of every type and age (i.e., of the 5735 accounted by Metzger/Ehrman).
Jerome’s maximum possible number of available high-quality manuscripts that currently survive from his time is 47. Remember, only 36% of the total of manuscripts from Jerome’s time are the high-quality Type 1 manuscript.
So, we seem to be able to say that in Jerome’s time, about one-third of MSS were of high quality (47 out of 130 MSS). Again, at his time, possibly 33% of manuscripts were high quality.
Now, our percentage of high-quality MSS is only about 10%. And our percentage of high-quality pre-400 AD manuscripts is less than 1% (47 divided by 5,735).
It seems that Jerome was 33 times more likely to have access to better MSS.
I’m just playing with these numbers, and somebody who is better with stats may be able to point out my errors, but I just want to put this out there.
SOURCES
In addition to The Text of the New Testament, by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, there are some decent online counts/categorizations of New Testament texts – surprisingly on Wikipedia.
Papyri – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri
Majuscule/uncial – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_uncials
Minuscule (1000 listed) – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_minuscules_(1%E2%80%931000)
Here’s a link to the major types of Greek texts by “type” or “family” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts
Here’s a shorter but less complete treatment that is a help if you don’t want the nitty-gritty: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1974/new-testament-text-types/
Hi, RMB. Here’s my thinking on the manuscript transmission.
It’s not clear that more manuscripts = more good information. Let’s take a look at why this is so. Granted, I am going to use a crude methodology, but to get any more detailed, I’d have to have a much greater knowledge of this, and I’m going to insert a big fudge factor later that I hope will render this method less useless.
THE NUMBER OF TEXTS
Bruce Metzger (deceased, Princeton Theological Seminary) documents the existing trove of New Testament texts as follows:
• Papyri: 116 – about two-thirds of which are dated before 400 AD, i.e., about 260.
• Majuscule/uncial MSS: 310 – about 30 of which are dated before 400 AD.
• Minuscule MSS: 2877 – most of which are after the 10th century.
• Lectionary MSS: 2432 – most of which are after the 10th century.
So, we have a total of 5,735 manuscripts of the New Testament – i.e., more by a factor 100 to 1000 compared to the surviving number of classical texts that document so-called “secular” facts. But that’s beside the point. These texts are NOT – by any means – all equal if quality.
WHICH TEXTS ARE MOST VALUABLE?
First of all, minuscule manuscripts were created at the time of or after Charlemagne’s era. So, they do not have the advantage of being early texts – even though it is true that many of them may have been copies from high-quality, revered ancient manuscripts. But at best, the minuscules are problematic and require individual assessment.
Secondly, like the minuscule manuscripts, nearly all of the lectionary MSS are in minuscule text – that is, they were created at the time of or after Charlemagne’s era. So, they do not have the advantage of being early texts – even though it is true that many of them may have been copies from high-quality, revered ancient manuscripts. But at best, the minuscules are problematic and require individual assessment.
Thirdly, the papyri manuscripts – although the oldest by far – are nearly always fragments. So even though they have a text-check value against more recent texts, they are not going to give a comprehensive picture of the full text.
Finally, the majuscule/uncial texts are by far the most complete texts and therefore the most useful. Furthermore, they tend to be quite old, although not as old as the papyrus texts.
COUNT OF “GOOD” AND “PRE-400 AD” TEXTS
The result? I’m going to posit that our best major source of complete texts is limited to the majuscules/uncials dated to 400 AD and before – sources that Jerome may have accessed in his Vulgate translation. These are the oldest texts and possibly the most useful. The total here is only about 30 manuscripts – 30.
As for papyrus manuscripts, it’s possible, even likely, that Jerome had access to these. We have less than 100 dated before 400 AD.
So, in current numbers, our very oldest manuscripts (before 400 AD) total to less than 130 (papyrus plus uncials). That’s 130 out of a total of 5,735. Only 23%!
Many of the later uncials and many of the minuscule texts may have been copied from high-quality texts (I can’t comment without spending many days on this), but let’s consider what percentage of the most important texts can be considered “high quality” by New Testament text analysts like Kurt Aland (and Barbara Aland). Out of the subset of 555 texts that they considered, important (only a fraction of total available texts), they have grouped the texts into five categories as follows:
• TYPE 1. ALEXANDRIAN. 64 texts. The most highly regarded of the Greek uncial/majuscule texts are those of the broad category sometimes called “Alexandrian” type, which means, in part, that they are not.
• TYPE 2. EGYPTIAN. 109 texts. These are still considered important but have evidence of “alien” influences of the Byzantine type.
• TYPE 3. ECLECTIC. 258 texts. These are still considered important but have evidence of “alien” influences.
• TYPE 4. WESTERN. 5 texts. These problematic texts have paraphrases and additions, yet preserve atypical readings that can at times prove valuable.
• TYPE 5. BYZANTINE. 119 texts. These texts are later (after 305 AD or the persecution of Diocletian), and reveal a greater degree of being “processed” or “smoothed” or “homogenized” to remove or explain problematic, but probably authentic readings. So, they are considered to have less textual value.
SO WHAT DO WE MAKE OF THIS?
Of all the limited number of texts of the New Testament that the Alands considered, only 64 of them are Type 1 (Alexandrian) texts – the highest-quality text by far. Of these, only 47 can be dated to 400 AD or before! So less than 10% of the current total of manuscripts were considered “important” by the Alands.
• Again, less than 10% of currently surviving manuscripts are “important.” (555 out of 5,735)
• Only 16% of important MSS are Type I.
• Only 8% of important MSS are Type I dated before 400 AD.
• After 400 AD, only 17 type I texts exist – about 3% of the 555 texts.
So, if only 3% of texts dated after 400 AD can be considered “important,” let’s apply this figure to the total number of manuscripts – the 5,735 in the tally of Metzger and Ehrman. That’s 172 manuscripts.
How many possible manuscripts did Jerome have in his time? We don’t know. But of those surviving we can tell the following:
• Jerome’s maximum possible number of available manuscripts that currently survive from his time is about 130. That is only 2% of the total number of manuscripts surviving of every type and age (i.e., of the 5735 accounted by Metzger/Ehrman).
• Jerome’s maximum possible number of available high-quality manuscripts that currently survive from his time is 47. Remember, only 36% of the total of manuscripts from Jerome’s time are the high-quality Type 1 manuscript.
• So, we seem to be able to say that in Jerome’s time, about one-third of MSS were of high quality (47 out of 130 MSS). Again, at his time, possibly 33% of manuscripts were high quality.
• Now, our percentage of high-quality MSS is only about 10%. And our percentage of high-quality pre-400 AD manuscripts is less than 1% (47 divided by 5,735).
It seems that Jerome was 33 times more likely to have access to better MSS.
I’m just playing with these numbers, and somebody who is better with stats may be able to point out my errors, but I just want to put this out there.
SOURCES
In addition to The Text of the New Testament, by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, there are some decent online counts/categorizations of New Testament texts – surprisingly on Wikipedia.
Papyri – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri
Majuscule/uncial – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_uncials
Minuscule (1000 listed) – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_minuscules_(1%E2%80%931000)
Here’s a link to the major types of Greek texts by “type” or “family” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts
Here’s a shorter but less complete treatment that is a help if you don’t want the nitty-gritty: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1974/new-testament-text-types/
I did a comprehensive search of early church cathers — i.e., fathers writing before Christianity was made legal with the Edict of Milan in 313. Only two writers comment on Romans 13: 1–7. They are Origen and Tertullian with a grand total of six comments. Both are traditional, but you’ll note that Origin is very nuanced (surprise! not), and I have to wonder what they would have said had they heard my theory.
CHURCH FATHERS ON ROMANS 13
ORIGEN on Romans 13:1 Authority Instituted by God GOD WILL JUDGE THOSE WHO ABUSE AUTHORITY:
What does Paul mean when he says that ―there is no authority except from God?‖ Is an authority which persecutes the children of God, which attacks the faith and which undermines our religion, from God? We shall answer this briefly. Nobody will deny that our senses— sight, sound and thought—are given to us by God. But although we get them from God, what we do with them is up to us…. God will judge us righteously for having abused what he gave us to use for good. Likewise, God‘s judgment against the authorities will be just, if they have used the powers they have received according to their own ungodliness and not according to the laws of God.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 1
ORIGEN ON Romans 13:2: Resisting Authority Incurs Judgment NOT APPLICABLE TO PERSECUTORS OF THE FAITH.
This injunction does not apply in the case of authorities who persecute the faith. It only applies to those who are going about their proper business.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 13:
ORIGEN on Romans 13:4 Rulers as Servants of God THE HUMAN JUDGE ACTS AS GOD’S SERVANT FOR YOUR GOOD.
In what sense is a judge in this world the servant of God? … It seems to me that this question is answered by that passage in the Acts of the Apostles where the decision was taken to impose only certain ritual obligations on Gentile believers.25 They were told to abstain from eating what had been sacrificed to idols, from blood and from fornication, but nothing was said about murder, adultery, theft, homosexuality or other crimes which are punished by both divine and human laws. Now if what was explicitly forbidden to the Gentiles was all they had to do, then it would seem as if these other things were all right. But look at how the Holy Spirit has organized everything. Because these other crimes are already punished by secular laws, it seemed superfluous to add a divine prohibition as well. All that he decreed concerned matters which seemed right from the divine point of view but which were not covered by human laws. It is in this way that a human judge acts as a servant of God. For God wants these crimes to be punished by human judges and not by representatives of the church.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 26
ORIGEN on Romans 13:5 Subject for the Sake of Conscience PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMES.
Paul tells the church not to do anything against the princes and powers of this world so that it may live in peace and quiet. For if the church rebels … then it will be punished, not because of its faith but because of its crimes, and instead of dying for a worthy cause people will die for an unworthy one.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 33
ORIGEN on Romans 13:7 Paying What is Due KEEPING FREE OF IDOLATRY.
The authorities demand taxes on our property and revenue from our business transactions. What can I say? Jesus Christ himself was obliged to pay taxes, not because he owed anything but so as not to cause scandal.45 If he who owed nothing to Caesar and who had every right to refuse to pay taxes nevertheless agreed to pay them, who are we to refuse to do so?
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 46 GIVING HONOR.
TERTULLIAN on Romans 13:7 Paying What is Due KEEPING FREE OF IDOLATRY.
So far as concerns the honors due to king or emperor, we have a clear ruling to be subject in all obedience, according to the apostle‘s command, to magistrates and princes and those in authority, but within the limits of Christian discipline, i.e., so long as we keep ourselves free of idolatry.
ON IDOLATRY 15.44 TAXES TO WHOM TAXES ARE DUE.
I’m leaving this here in case anyone wants to verify my assumption that Jerome had a better chance of gaining access to good texts than we now do.
It’s not clear that more manuscripts = more good information. Let’s take a look at why this is so. Granted, I am going to use a crude methodology, but to get any more detailed, I’d have to have a much greater knowledge of this, and I’m going to insert a big fudge factor later that I hope will render this method less useless.
THE NUMBER OF TEXTS
Bruce Metzger (deceased, Princeton Theological Seminary) documents the existing trove of New Testament texts as follows:
• Papyri: 116 – about two-thirds of which are dated before 400 AD, i.e., about 260.
• Majuscule/uncial MSS: 310 – about 30 of which are dated before 400 AD.
• Minuscule MSS: 2877 – most of which are after the 10th century.
• Lectionary MSS: 2432 – most of which are after the 10th century.
So, we have a total of 5,735 manuscripts of the New Testament – i.e., more by a factor 100 to 1000 compared to the surviving number of classical texts that document so-called “secular” facts. But that’s beside the point. These texts are NOT – by any means – all equal if quality.
WHICH TEXTS ARE MOST VALUABLE?
First of all, minuscule manuscripts were created at the time of or after Charlemagne’s era. So, they do not have the advantage of being early texts – even though it is true that many of them may have been copies from high-quality, revered ancient manuscripts. But at best, the minuscules are problematic and require individual assessment.
Secondly, like the minuscule manuscripts, nearly all of the lectionary MSS are in minuscule text – that is, they were created at the time of or after Charlemagne’s era. So, they do not have the advantage of being early texts – even though it is true that many of them may have been copies from high-quality, revered ancient manuscripts. But at best, the minuscules are problematic and require individual assessment.
Thirdly, the papyri manuscripts – although the oldest by far – are nearly always fragments. So even though they have a text-check value against more recent texts, they are not going to give a comprehensive picture of the full text.
Finally, the majuscule/uncial texts are by far the most complete texts and therefore the most useful. Furthermore, they tend to be quite old, although not as old as the papyrus texts.
COUNT OF “GOOD” AND “PRE-400 AD” TEXTS
The result? I’m going to posit that our best major source of complete texts is limited to the majuscules/uncials dated to 400 AD and before – sources that Jerome may have accessed in his Vulgate translation. These are the oldest texts and possibly the most useful. The total here is only about 30 manuscripts – 30.
As for papyrus manuscripts, it’s possible, even likely, that Jerome had access to these. We have less than 100 dated before 400 AD.
So, in current numbers, our very oldest manuscripts (before 400 AD) total to less than 130 (papyrus plus uncials). That’s 130 out of a total of 5,735. Only 23%!
Many of the later uncials and many of the minuscule texts may have been copied from high-quality texts (I can’t comment without spending many days on this), but let’s consider what percentage of the most important texts can be considered “high quality” by New Testament text analysts like Kurt Aland (and Barbara Aland). Out of the subset of 555 texts that they considered, important (only a fraction of total available texts), they have grouped the texts into five categories as follows:
• TYPE 1. ALEXANDRIAN. 64 texts. The most highly regarded of the Greek uncial/majuscule texts are those of the broad category sometimes called “Alexandrian” type, which means, in part, that they are not.
• TYPE 2. EGYPTIAN. 109 texts. These are still considered important but have evidence of “alien” influences of the Byzantine type.
• TYPE 3. ECLECTIC. 258 texts. These are still considered important but have evidence of “alien” influences.
• TYPE 4. WESTERN. 5 texts. These problematic texts have paraphrases and additions, yet preserve atypical readings that can at times prove valuable.
• TYPE 5. BYZANTINE. 119 texts. These texts are later (after 305 AD or the persecution of Diocletian), and reveal a greater degree of being “processed” or “smoothed” or “homogenized” to remove or explain problematic, but probably authentic readings. So, they are considered to have less textual value.
Of all the limited number of texts of the New Testament that the Alands considered, only 64 of them are Type 1 (Alexandrian) texts – the highest-quality text by far. Of these, only 47 can be dated to 400 AD or before! So less than 10% of the current total of manuscripts were considered “important” by the Alands.
Again, less than 10% of currently surviving manuscripts are “important.” (555 out of 5,735)
Only 16% of important MSS are Type I.
Only 8% of important MSS are Type I dated before 400 AD.
After 400 AD, only 17 type I texts exist – about 3% of the 555 texts.
So, if only 3% of texts dated after 400 AD can be considered “important,” let’s apply this figure to the total number of manuscripts – the 5,735 in the tally of Metzger and Ehrman. That’s 172 manuscripts.
How many possible manuscripts did Jerome have in his time? We don’t know. But of those surviving we can tell the following:
Jerome’s maximum possible number of available manuscripts that currently survive from his time is about 130. That is only 2% of the total number of manuscripts surviving of every type and age (i.e., of the 5735 accounted by Metzger/Ehrman).
Jerome’s maximum possible number of available high-quality manuscripts that currently survive from his time is 47. Remember, only 36% of the total of manuscripts from Jerome’s time are the high-quality Type 1 manuscript.
So, we seem to be able to say that in Jerome’s time, about one-third of MSS were of high quality (47 out of 130 MSS). Again, at his time, possibly 33% of manuscripts were high quality.
Now, our percentage of high-quality MSS is only about 10%. And our percentage of high-quality pre-400 AD manuscripts is less than 1% (47 divided by 5,735).
It seems that Jerome was 33 times more likely to have access to better MSS.
I’m just playing with these numbers, and somebody who is better with stats may be able to point out my errors, but I just want to put this out there.
SOURCES
In addition to The Text of the New Testament, by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, there are some decent online counts/categorizations of New Testament texts – surprisingly on Wikipedia.
Papyri – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri
Majuscule/uncial – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_uncials
Minuscule (1000 listed) – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_minuscules_(1%E2%80%931000)
Here’s a link to the major types of Greek texts by “type” or “family” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts
Here’s a shorter but less complete treatment that is a help if you don’t want the nitty-gritty: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1974/new-testament-text-types/