Jude 1:5 Lord or Jesus? Which is the correct reading?
In the book of Jude, a very important, although until rather recently, a not well known, textual variant can be found. Was it the Lord or Jesus that saved the people from Egypt?
The KJV reads the Lord:
Jude 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. KJV
This, however, is not a KJV only argument.
Agreeing with the KJV and using “the Lord” in this verse, are the NIV, NASB, NKJV, ASV, CEV, ISV, Youngs literal to name a few selected translations.
Lord is also the reading of the majority of early English translations that predate the KJV:
Geneva Bible
I wil therfore put you in remebrance, forasmuch as ye once knew this, how that the Lord, after that he had deliuered the people out of Egypt, destroied them afterward which beleeued not.
Bishops’ Bible
My mynde is therfore to put you in remembraunce: forasmuch as ye once knowe this, howe that the Lorde, after that he had delyuered the people out of Egypt, destroyed the which afterward beleued not.
Coverdale Bible
My minde is therfore to put you in remebrauce, for as moche as ye once knowe this, how that ye LORDE (after that he had deliuered the people out of Egipt) destroyed them which afterwarde beleued not.
Tyndale Bible
My mynde is therfore to put you in remebraunce for as moche as ye once knowe this how that the Lorde (after that he had delivered the people out of Egypt) destroyed them which afterwarde beleved not.
However, in the ESV we find the reading “Jesus”.
Jude 1:5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. ESV
The reading found in the ESV has Jesus saving the people from Egypt.
Agreeing with the ESV are versions such as the BSB, NLT, CSB, Douay Rheims, and the NET Bible.
The translator Grenfell Penn in his 1836 translation also preferred the reading Ἰησοῦς although he translated this as Joshua not Jesus.
Interestingly, this reading is also the reading of the Wycliffe Bible.
Jude 1:5 But Y wole moneste you onys, that witen alle thingis, that Jhesus sauyde his puple fro the lond of Egipt, and the secunde tyme loste hem that bileueden not. Wycliffe
It must be noted that the Wycliffe Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate.
The Vulgate reads Jesus in Jude 1:5
Jude 1:5 commonere autem vos volo scientes semel omnia quoniam Iesus populum de terra Aegypti salvans secundo eos qui non crediderunt perdidit.
Vulgate
So the reading in the Wycliffe Bible, is therefore, directly influenced and based on the latin.
So which is correct, Jesus or the Lord?
It is probably safe to say that today, most modern textual critics would assert that, Ἰησοῦς: Jesus, is the original reading.
The NA/UBS text is the text that underlies the ESV and the majority of modern versions including the NIV and NASB.
The NA28/ UBS5 text released in 2012 reads Jesus, Ἰησοῦς:
Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν,
However, the reading Jesus, Ἰησοῦς, in the NA28/UBS5 text is actually a change from the reading Lord, Κύριος , that was found in the previous 27 editions of the text:
We can see this in the NA27/UBS4 Text:
Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ἅπαξ / ὑμᾶς πάντα, ὅτι [ὁ] Κύριος [ἅπαξ] λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν, NA27/UBS4
So while Jesus is the reading found in the NA/UBS text of today. It has not always read that way and, in fact, read as the KJV did for 27 prior editions. For 27 editions “the Lord” was the accepted original reading. It must be pointed out that the NA/UBS text is ever changing and there is no guarantee that the reading “Jesus” will not be replaced with “the Lord” in the next edition or any future subsequent editions,
Another note of importance is that the change made in the NA28/UBS5 text from Lord to Jesus is not based on any newly discovered evidence. The same evidence that formed the reading Lord for 27 editions is the same evidence that is now used to underlie the reading Jesus.
While the ESV is based upon the NA/UBS text the reading Jesus in the ESV was NOT. The ESV is actually based upon the NA27/UBS4 text which read “the Lord”. In 2001, the ESV went with the reading Jesus, this then was approximately 11 years before the NA28/UBS5 text was released. The ESV chose to deviate from the text that underlies it (the NA27/UBS4 text) and therefore was in direct disagreement with its underlying text until the release of the NA28/UBS5 text which then brought the two into agreement.
It must be further noted that even the 1881 Westcott and Hort text, that relied so heavily on Vaticanus and to a lesser extent Siniaticus, also read, Κύριος, Lord.
Jude 1:5 Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ἅπαξ πάντα, ὅτι Κύριος λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν,
Westcott and Hort 1881
The Westcot and Hort text was based mainly on codex Vaticanus, yet they decided to go with Sinaticus on this one. Even they did not see Jesus being an accurate and original reading for this verse.
When deciding on which reading is the correct reading we must look at the manuscript evidence, but we must also take into account patristic citations and the contextual evidence and internal biblical evidence.
On page 280 of the “The Text of the New Testament” by Aland and Aland we find 12 basic rules for Textual Criticism
Rule 2 states:
“ Only the reading which best Satisfies the requirements of both external and internal criteria can be original.”
So we shall look at both the external and the internal evidence for the reading.
Let us start with the manuscript evidence (External evidence)
When it comes to manuscript evidence, Iēsous, does have the majority advantage. This is one of the occasions where a reading found in the KJV does not have the majority manuscript support. However, as seen in many readings, this certainly isn’t a defining factor as most textual critics will “weigh” manuscripts not count them.
The reading “Lord” is supported by ; Siniaticus , Ψ; 436; 945; 1505; 1611; 2138; 1067; 1175; 1292; 1409; 1735
The reading “Jesus” is found in Vaticanus (B) as it is also in Alexandrinus(A). Latin Vulgate also reads Jesus in Jude 1:5 as already seen, which is why the Wycliffe Bible reads Jesus.
It is further attested to in manuscripts such as 33; 81; 1241; 1739; 1881; 2344
What cannot be ignored here is the disagreement between Vaticanus and Siniaticus. Vaticanus and Siniaticus, two of the foremost manuscripts, according to modern Textual criticism, do not agree on the reading. Anyone that has studied textual Criticism at even a basic level will know that this is not unusual. What must be noted is that both (A) Alexandrinus and (B) are in agreement.
The oldest manuscript of Jude 1:5 that we have, at this moment in time, is P72 dated to the 3rd/4th century, possibly 100 years earlier than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
P72 contains the rather strange reading God Christ. None of the major translations of the Bible follow this reading, which again should be restated, is the OLDEST manuscript attestation of Jude 1:5. This reading is not considered to be original despite it being the oldest manuscript attested reading. The fact that this reading is not accepted as being original, at least goes to show that textual criticism is not as simple as “older is better”.
The above is an image of Jude 1:5 in P72. As we can clearly see God Christ is written in Nomina Sacra (θς χρς)
The correction of manuscript C reads God.
As stated, Vaticanus reads Jesus in this verse yet, Westcott and Hort, who relied so heavily on this manuscript when they composed their text back in the late 19th century did not utilise this reading but instead went with the reading found in Sinaiticus.
When there is more than one reading, otherwise known as a textual variant, as there is in this case, modern textual criticism often favours the more difficult of those readings.
Rule number 10 of the 12 rules of Textual Criticism found on page 280 of “The Text of the New Testament” by Aland and Aland states:
“ The truth is in the Maxim: lectio difficilior lectio potior )”the more difficult reading is the more probable reading”) But this principle must not be taken too mechanically, with the most difficult reading (lectio difficilima) adopted as original simply because of its degree of difficulty.
As we see, although it does assert that the more difficult reading is the more probable reading, it is also asserted that a difficult reading should not simply be adopted as the original reading based on its difficulty.
I have written elsewhere on why I believe this rule to actually be fundamentally flawed and won’t address it directly here.
We shall just look at this difficult reading.
In his commentary on Jude 1:5, Bruce Metzger stated that “Critical principles seem to require the adoption of Ἰησοῦς” pointing out that it was the best attested reading amongst the Greek witnesses.
[Critical principles seem to require the adoption of Ἰησοῦς, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses (see above). Struck by the strange and unparalleled mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption out of Egypt (yet compare Paul’s reference to Χριστός in 1 Cor 10:4), copyists would have substituted (ὁ) κύριος or ὁ θεός. (Metzger commentary on the NT 724)
However, Metzger also stated that the reading Jesus was deemed by the majority of the committee, to be “difficult to the point of impossibility”
Despite the weighty attestation supporting Ἰησοῦς (A B 33 81 322 323 424c 665 1241 1739 1881 2298 2344 vg cop, bo eth Origen Cyril Jerome Bede; ὁ Ἰησοῦς 88 915), a majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility, and explained its origin in terms of transcriptional oversight (ΚΧ being taken for ΙΧ). It was also observed that nowhere else does the author employ Ἰησοῦς alone, but always Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. The unique collocation θεὸς Χριστός read by P72 (did the scribe intend to write θεοῦ χριστός, “God’s anointed one”?) is probably a scribal blunder; otherwise one would expect that Χριστός would be represented also in other witnesses. The great majority of witnesses read ὁ before κύριος, but on the strength of its absence from א Ψ and the tendency of scribes to add the article, it was thought best to enclose ὁ within square brackets. (Metzger Commentary on the NT 723)
“Difficult to the point of impossibility”…..yet according to modern scholars….correct.
He also states that the reading “God Christ” as found in P72, our oldest manuscript witness, was “probably a scribal error” Metzger questioned whether the scribe meant to write God’s Christ (anointed one) rather than God Christ.
Daniel Wallace stated:
“As difficult as the reading “Jesus” is, in light of v. 4 and in light of the progress of revelation, it is wholly appropriate.” dan wallace net
So while Jesus is the reading that is supported by the majority of the Greek witnesses the reading “Jesus” is so difficult a reading that it was deemed near impossible for it to have been original and yet today it has been accepted by the NA28/UBS5, the ESV and some modern versions, to be just that, the original reading. A near impossible reading…..must be the original…..I see no problem here (closing my eyes and inserting fingers into my ears).
Dr Tommy Wasserman in his 2006 book on the epistle of Jude, ”
“the best attested reading Ἰησοῠς can only be a blunder”
Blunder is one way to put it, but maybe there is a reason for the change from Lord to Jesus. It could be that the scribe had a presuppositional view and thought that the usage of the word Lord was too ambiguous. Who is the Lord in reference in this verse, the Father or Jesus. So in an attempt to highlight the scribes understanding, he changed the Lord to Jesus, making the referent more clear.
What I find interesting about the acceptance of “Jesus” by Dan Wallace, in Jude 1:5 despite its difficulty is the fact that Mr Wallace rejects the translation “Jesus” in both Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8
Acts 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; KJV
Hebrews 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. KJV
As we can see the KJV has Jesus in both of these verses. The NET Bible, however, does not have the name Jesus in these verses but rather Joshua.
Acts 7:45 Our ancestors received possession of it and brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our ancestors, until the time of David. NET Bible
Hebrews 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken afterward about another day. Net Bible
We won’t delve into the correct translation in these 2 verses but I will just highlight a comment made by Dan Wallace regarding the KJV translation “Jesus” here.
“Why the KJV has ‘Jesus’ here is a mystery to me.“
I will address this “mystery” in another writing, although I will highlight that the KJV translators were not in any way fools but very highly educated and skilled scholars, most of which spoke numerous languages including Greek and Latin. If they felt that Jesus was the correct translation in these two verses they would (and did) have good reason to do so, even if Dan Wallace is unable to fathom it.
The reason that the more difficult reading is generally accepted as the original is because it is asserted, quite incorrectly in my opinion, and demonstrably so, that scribes were far more likely to change a reading that they felt was difficult to an easier one rather than the other way around. As I have already pointed out I have dealt with the assertion in other writings and so won’t do so again here. It could at this point be argued that God Christ is a far more difficult reading than that of Jesus.
What I will do, however, is just point out one specific occasion where the acceptance of the “harder reading” being the correct reading, has forced Dan Wallace into a position where he has had to add the name Jesus to the name of the criminal Barabbas, twice, once in Matthew 27:16 and once in verse 17.
Matthew 27: 16 At that time they had in custody a notorious prisoner named Jesus Barabbas. 17 So after they had assembled, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Christ?”
Most versions of the Bible do not include the name Jesus before Barabbas here, the inclusion of which makes the name of Barabbas a surname and his name actually being Jesus.
There are a few other translations that have adopted this reading such as the NIV(2011 version although the 1973, 1978 and 1984 versions did not include Jesus), The NRSV (the RSV does not have Jesus before Barabbas) and the NAB has Jesus in brackets.
Dan Wallace stated in a footnote:
“Although the external evidence for the inclusion of “Jesus” before “Barabbas” (in vv. 16 and 17) is rather sparse, being restricted virtually to the Caesarean text the omission of the Lord’s name in apposition to “Barabbas” is such a strongly motivated reading that it can hardly be original. There is no good explanation for a scribe unintentionally adding ᾿Ιησοῦν (Ihsoun) before Βαραββᾶν (Barabban), especially since Barabbas is mentioned first in each verse (thus dittography is ruled out). Further, the addition of τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν (ton legomenon Criston, “who is called Christ”) to ᾿Ιησοῦν in v. 17 makes better sense if Barabbas is also called “Jesus” (otherwise, a mere “Jesus” would have been a sufficient appellation to distinguish the two).
So Dan admits that the evidence is sparse (an understatement to say the least) “being restricted virtually to the Caesarean text”.
The 2 occurrences of Jesus in Matthew 27:16 and 17 are not found in either Vaticanus nor Sinaiticus, along with A, D,K,L, and W to name just a few.
Let’s reiterate this, 3 of the main manuscripts used in modern textual criticism, 3 of the “oldest and best manuscripts” that are so often thrown at those that stand by the KJV readings ALL, thats Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, are unified in their attestation and support of the non originality of the word Jesus in both verses.
They are not included in the Westcott and Hort text who didn’t even mention the variant reading in verses 16 and 17.
Matthew 27:16 εἶχον δὲ τότε δέσμιον ἐπίσημον λεγόμενον Βαραββᾶν. 17 συνηγμένων οὖν αὐτῶν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Πειλᾶτος Τίνα θέλετε ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν, τὸν Βαραββᾶν ἢ Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν;
The reading has now been bracketed in the NA/UBS text, first included in the NA27/UBS4 text and remains in the NA28/UBS5 text.
Matthew 27:16 εἶχον δὲ τότε δέσμιον ἐπίσημον λεγόμενον [Ἰησοῦν] Βαραββᾶν. 17 συνηγμένων οὖν αὐτῶν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Πειλᾶτος / Πιλᾶτος Τίνα θέλετε ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν, [Ἰησοῦν] τὸν Βαραββᾶν ἢ Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν;
None of the other gospel writers used the name Jesus before Barabbas either.
The reference to Barabbas can be found in Mark 15, Luke 23 and John 18.
There is no internal biblical support for having Jesus before Barabbas.
And yet Mr Wallace would assert that it is the original reading…….textual criticism at its very best or rather showing its worst.
As we see, Dan is faced with the harder reading Jesus Barabbas, and is left with the position that the omission of Jesus here can “hardly be the original”. The inclusion, then, is despite the evidence to the contrary but is almost demanded by the acceptance of the harder reading. As Dan states he believes there is no good reason that a scribe would have added Jesus here, and so as Dan cannot fathom a reason that a scribe would add the word, it therefore, must be original and have been omitted. Of course this is not what the evidence would support but rather is based on Dan Wallace not being able to understand why a scribe would add Jesus and the rule that would assert that the harder reading is the correct reading. Difficult readings are one thing, ridiculous and clear and obvious erroneous readings are another. It seems that world renowned scholar Dan Wallace is struggling to fathom a lot when it comes to translation.
Regardless of whether Dan Wallace is able to postulate a good reason for a scribe making such an addition, the evidence does not support Jesus being the original reading.
It is quite possible that a scribe added the word Jesus here for theological reasons.
Will Kinney on his Brandplucked website puts forth a very plausible reason for a scribe adding Jesus here, he states:
“I can think of a very good reason why some scribe presumed to add his own thoughts to God’s words, just as Daniel Wallace frequently does. The name Barabbas means “son” (bar) of the Father (abba), and it is a highly significant “type” that the guilty “son of the father” would be released and the “Son of the Father” would take his place in the crucifixion.
So it is quite possible that a scribe thought this beautiful “type” could be embellished even more by adding the word Jesus to the name Barabbas, and thus we have “Jesus the son of the Father” being released from the death penalty and “Jesus who is called Christ” taking his place.”
https://brandplucked.webs.com/heb48jesusorjoshua.htm
Whether or not Will Kinney is correct in his postulating here, what it does show is that it is possible to posit reasonable motives as to why the name Jesus would be added by a scribe that better harmonises with the available evidence which would, in fact, support the non originality of the name Jesus.
What I need to point out here is that at least some scholars do believe that scribes almost certainly did change scriptures for theological reasons.
In his book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, Bart Ehrman, one of the world’s leading biblical scholars, argues that scriptures were in fact changed in order to support certain theological beliefs, or rather remove the support, and therefore, the ability to use scripture as support, of opposing beliefs.
“Scribes occasionally altered the words of their sacred texts to make them more patently orthodox and to prevent their misuse by Christians who espoused aberrant views.”
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, Bart Ehrman (Introduction)
“In the technical parlance of textual criticism— which I retain for its significant ironies—these scribes “corrupted” their texts for theological reasons.”
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, Bart Ehrman (Introduction)
Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently “orthodox” and less susceptible to “abuse” by the opponents of orthodoxy.
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, Bart Ehrman Chapter 1 page 4
Bart Ehrman argued that one of the common corruptions against anti-adoptionism was to “simply designate Christ as “God.” He then gives some examples which include Jude 1:5
“By far the most common anti-adoptionistic corruptions simply designate Christ as “God.” Sometimes these variants are widely attested (1 Tim 3:16; John 1:18); more frequently they occur in a restricted portion of the tradition (e.g., Mark 1:3; 1 John 3:23; John 10:33; 19:40), or exclusively among the early versions (e.g., Luke 1:17, 76; 2:26). On occasion, such changes occur in manuscripts that can actually be dated to the period of concern (e.g., 2 Pet 1:2; Jude 5)”
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, Bart Ehrman page 98
He specifically argues that manuscripts were changed in order to support the position that Jesus is God. Again, Bart gives examples of where these changes can be found.
When Peter makes his famous confession of Luke 9:20, rather than acknowledging Jesus as “the Christ of God” {tov xptmov tov Oeov), in some Coptic manuscripts he professes him to be “Christ, God” (= tov xP^cttov tov Oeov). In Mark 3:11, where the demoniac proclaims Jesus’ identity, “You are the Son of God,” one important minuscule manuscript reads “You are God, the Son of God” (cn) el 6 0eos, 6 uto? tov Oeov, MS 69). 189 The state¬ ment of Luke 7:9, “when Jesus heard this,” has been changed in one minus¬ cule (124) to read “when God heard this.” Similarly, manuscript 2766 changes the words of the demoniac in Luke 8:28 from “Jesus Son of the Highest God” to “Jesus, the Highest God” (omit vie). In Luke 8:40, where the crowds welcome Jesus after having awaited him, the first hand of codex Sinaiticus says they welcome him because they have all been awaiting “God” {tov Oeov for amov). Finally, in the quotation from Psalm 110 in Luke 20:42, the text of the Persian Diatesseron has been changed so as not to read “the Lord said to my lord,” (i.e., for Luke, God spoke to David’s Lord) but instead “God said to my God,” (i.e., God the Father spoke to God the Son).
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, Bart Ehrman Page 190
What is interesting is that in P72 we find another textual variant that would, just like God Christ in Jude 1:5, reflect a high Christology of the scribe. The Variant can be found in 2 Peter 1:2 where the word “and” is not in the text, again leading to Jesus being identified as God.
“2 Peter 1:2: “May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of our Lord Jesus.” p 72 omits the conjunction “and” (/tat), leading to the identification of Jesus as God: “in the knowledge of God, our Lord Jesus.” That this omission was not an accident is confirmed by similar modifications in the same manuscript. Thus, in Jude 5, where manuscripts vary over whether it was “the Lord” “
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, Bart Ehrman page 85
The reading found in P72 is again, not incorporated within any of the major versions including the ESV.
2 Peter 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, KJV
2 Peter 1:2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. ESV
Whether seen from a social or theological point of view, Jewish Christianity in the early centuries was a remarkably diversified phenomenon. 17 This has become increasingly clear to scholars conversant with the wide range of New Testament materials:
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, Bart Ehrman Page 50
The modern emphasis on theological diversity in the early centuries, however, has brought some sense of reality to the description of Jewish Christianity, forcing scholars to recognize that there were in fact radically different points of view represented by different Jewish Christians, and that various Jewish-Christian groups probably developed their views over time, so that what was believed by the majority of a group’s members in the year 180 c.e. may not have been at all what was believed in the year 120 c.e. None¬ theless, there appears to be a tendency even now to think along the lines of several distinct groupings, two or three monoliths instead of one, rather than to recognize that Jewish Christianity probably manifested itself in vastly different ways from one community to the next over time.
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, Bart Ehrman Page 50
The earliest non biblical attestation to Jesus being linked with the Exodus comes to us through the writings of Justin Martyr.
“For all we out of all nations do expect not Judah, but Jesus, who led your fathers out of Egypt.”
Dialogue with Trypho chapter 120
However, are we to understand that Justin thought that it was literally Jesus that led the Israelites out of Egypt?
The simple answer is no.
While Justin does make this statement, the context of his writing shows us that Justin was using this metaphorically, or rather spiritually and prophetically, not literally.
“He speaks therefore in the passage relating to Judah: ‘A prince shall not fail from Judah, nor a ruler from his thighs, till that which is laid up for him come; and He shall be the expectation of the nations.’ Genesis 49:10 And it is plain that this was spoken not of Judah, but of Christ.
Justin is linking Jesus, to the prince that would come from Judah. Of course. We know this was not Judah himself but Jesus as Justin correctly states. This is prophetic.
This does not mean that Jesus physically or literally existed at the time of Genesis nor at the time of the Exodus but prophetically he did.
It is the same way in in which the Israelites drank the spiritual drink of the spiritual rock that was Christ.
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
We can see it also in the way that Abraham paid tithes to Levi, even though Levi had not yet been born.
Hebrews 7: 9And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
We should not understand this literally. Justin is not arguing that Jesus literally led the Israelites out of Egypt but spiritually he did.
On this basis, I would argue that the reading Jesus was not original but rather arose by way of anachronistically reading Jesus back into the OT, either through a preconceived belief that Jesus is God or because this was to be taken spiritually rather than literally.
At this point I would like to reiterate that we cannot ignore the possibility of an unintentional error. It is at least possible that a scribe changed the reading of the nomina sacra from κς Lord to ις Jesus, or the other way around, simply by mistaking the K and the I as Bruce Metzger wrote (already cited in this writing).
Reliability of the “best and earliest” manuscripts:
I would now like to point out some other variants that can be found within this very short book in the manuscripts that are considered the best witnesses and show that the texts of these manuscripts disagree with each other throughout this book,are not as reliable as made out to be and are in reality cherry picked from in which readings that are then followed. This is not a full and concise list of variants but will serve adequately as examples of such variants.
In verse 5, the same verse where we find the variant reading Jesus, we also have more variants. Sinaiticus reads panta (Things) instead of touto( this)
“You knew all things” (panta) as opposed to “you knew all this” (touto)
Sinaiticus also omits the word hapax “once”.
The word humas “you” is not included in P72, A and C
While Siniaticus does use Kyrious, Lord, it does not have the definitive article. Manuscript C does contain the definitive article
Verse 11:
Jude 1 :11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. KJV
Here we have “after the error of Balaam”.
Balaam is the reading of all major versions of the Bible.
P72, the oldest of our witnesses reads “after the error of Balaak”. Balaam and Balaak are not the same person. Balaam was a false prophet and Balaak was the king of Moab.
This is clearly a scribal error and should not be accepted as original, although it most certainly would be the most difficult reading.
Verse 14:
Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
In this verse we have “ten thousands of his saints,”
The reading “Saints” is from the Greek ἁγίαις hagiais, meaning holy (ones)
This is the majority reading and is found in manuscripts A, B and C but Siniaticus and P72 read angels, Angelos.
None of the main versions of the Bible read angels here, despite this being understood by many scholars to be referring to angels. The word Angelos is a clear case of the scribe altering the original text, Holy (ones) to read more clearly who they believed was the referent in order to make who they believed the referent was, more obvious. Whether or not angels are the holy ones referenced in the verse, angels is not the original reading of the Greek text and, therefore, should not be translated as angels.
Verse 15
Jude 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
In verse 15 we have the words “All that are ungodly” pantas tous asebeis.
This is the reading of the majority of manuscripts and is found in Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and C.
Yet again Sinaiticus and P72 read very differently and have Pasan Psuche, every soul.
Now despite the fact that Vaticanus and Alexandrinus are in agreement, both read as the majority text, the NA28/UBS5 text follows Sinaiticus and P72 here.
NA28/UBS5
ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων καὶ ἐλέγξαι πᾶσαν ψυχὴν περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ’ αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς.
The NA27/UBS4 text, however, read as is found in Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and the majority of manuscripts.
ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων καὶ ἐλέγξαι πάντας / πᾶσαν (τοὺς) ἀσεβεῖς / ψυχὴν περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ’ αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς. NA27/UBS4
Again like in verse 5, this is not based on any new evidence. In verse 5, where Vaticanus (B) and Alexandrinus (A) agreed and disagreed with Sinaiticus the reading of (B) and (A) was accepted as original yet here in this verse (B) and (A) are yet again in agreement and in disagreement with Sinaiticus but the reading of Sinaiticus is now chosen as being the correct reading.
The context of this verse is quite explicit that it is referring to the ungodly and not all souls.
It must also be stated that the words “among them”, are also not found in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexadrinus , C and P72. They are, however, found in the majority of manuscripts.
But that isn’t all of the differences in this verse.
The majority text reads “of all their ungodly deeds”. This is also found in C.
Peri pantōn tōn ergōn asebeias autōn
Vaticanus does not include the word autōn, and therefore, reads “of all ungodly deeds”. Autōn is included in the NA28/UBS5 text and is also included in the ESV.
Sinaiticus adds the word logoon (words) in the verse, as does manuscript C. The words ergōn asebeias (Ungodly deeds) are also not found in Sinaiticus.
Let’s now look at the biblical evidence:
What is striking about the reading “Jesus” is that it seems to come out of the blue. If Jude is making the claim that Jesus saved the Israelites out of Egypt it comes from nowhere. It would basically be a stand alone statement. Jude makes no mention of this “fact” prior to this statement and does not further the claim in the remainder of his letter.
Jude also states “though ye once knew this,”. This can only refer to those he was writing to having once known that it was indeed Jesus that saved his people from Egypt. Jesus by the way makes no mention of him having led the Israelites from Egypt.
As there is no other New Testament attestation to this fact, besides the claimed parallel in 1 Corinthians, if we are to understand Jude to be referring to Jesus this cannot be found within scripture and should then be questioned as to where Jude had derived this information from and on what basis did he claim that “they once knew this.”
We have no biblical attestation of anyone knowing that it was Jesus that saved the people from Egypt.
God states that he brought Israel out of Egypt and he calls Egypt his son.
Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
This cannot be Jesus as Jesus is the son of God. Jesus is not, neither is he ever called the father of the Israelites.
We are explicitly told within scripture that God speaks NOW through his son. The son did not speak during the OT.
Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Even in mainstream Trinitarian theology Jesus is the name of the man, the christ. Jesus was not the name of the son before the son took on flesh. Jesus did not exist at the time of the Exodus. The trinitarian argument would require this to be the son not Jesus.
It must be noted here that there are those that do believe that the name of God is Jesus.
The one that brought Israel out of Egypt spoke to the Israelites and so if this was the son, the statement in Hebrews 1:2 would be false.
Jesus, is the human name of the messiah that walked the earth, Jesus did not physically nor literally exist at the time of the Exodus.
Jesus Christ
Within the very short book of Jude, which is just one chapter of 25 verses, Jude refers to Jesus a total of 5 times (Jude 1:1(twice), 1:4, 1:17, 1:21), 6 times if we include Jude 1:5. On 5 of those occasions Jude refers to Jesus by the very specific name Jesus Christ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Iēsou Christou
While this fact does not rule out the possibility of Jude referring to Jesus simply as Jesus rather than Jesus Christ, the sample size is very small to say the least, nor would Jude referring to Jesus as Jesus Christ on the other 5 occasions bind him to this way of referencing him, the evidence would at least support the claim that Jude would have included Christ had Jesus been the referent of this verse based upon the other times Jude referenced Jesus.
Jude most certainly did refer to Jesus as Lord, Kyrios, in his letter, however, I would assert that when he did so, he would refer to him as, “our Lord Jesus Christ”, τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
We specifically see this in verse 17
Jude 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; KJV
And in verse 21
Jude 1:21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. KJV
Our Lord Jesus Christ is also the reading in these 2 verses in the ESV
Jude 1:17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. ESV
Jude 1:21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. ESV
In the KJV, we also have Jude referring to Jesus as “our Lord Jesus Christ in verse 4
Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ very clearly two distinct referents
This is very different than the reading found in the ESV
Jude 1:14 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Here we have one referent, Jesus who is referred to as Master and Lord.
This is why Dan Wallace stated that the reading “Jesus” in Jude 1:5 despite it being a difficult reading was wholly appropriate, because of the rendering of Jude 1:4.
As we can see the Net Bible reads as the ESV, making Jesus both Master and Lord.
Jude 1:4 For certain men have secretly slipped in among you–men who long ago were marked out for the condemnation I am about to describe–ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a licence for evil and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Net Bible.
The underlying Greek text of these two readings is very different.
Jude 1:4 παρεισέδυσαν γάρ τινες ἄνθρωποι, οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα, ἀσεβεῖς, τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι. NA28/UBS5
Jude 1:4 παρεισέδυσαν γάρ τινες ἄνθρωποι οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα ἀσεβεῖς τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριν μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην Θεόν, καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι
1550 Stephanus
In his book, “The Kings James only controversy”, James White makes the following statement:
““I have often pointed this passage out to Jehovah’s Witnesses and asked, ‘Now, can you say with Jude that you have only one Sovereign Lord? Or do you have two, Jehovah, and Jesus Christ?’ The point is rarely missed. But the KJV’s rendering obscures this by following inferior manuscripts, resulting in a reading that allows one to distinguish between the “Lord God” and “the Lord Jesus Christ.””
The King James only controversy page 206
This presupposes that the manuscripts that underlie the modern versions are superior. We have already seen how these superior manuscripts completely oppose each other throughout Jude and how, in fact, at certain times these manuscripts actually agree with the KJV readings at certain points while others disagree and then vice versa, the manuscripts that disagreed in one place agree in another and the ones that agreed with the KJV readings, disagree in other places. So in actuality these superior manuscripts do agree with the KJV readings if you accept the readings that agree with the KJV in these superior manuscripts. What James White is really saying is that:
“When the readings of the superior manuscripts agree with the readings in the KJV then they are incorrect readings. When the Superior manuscripts disagree with the KJV readings then they are correct”
So all you need to do is cherry pick the readings that disagree and you can end up with any reading you want….take your pick.
As the reading “Jesus” being the correct reading in verse 5 is heavily dependent on the rendering of verse 4, Dan Wallace stated that the reading “Jesus” fits verse 5 because of how verse 4 reads, we then must look into the evidence for the varying readings of this verse.
This again is not a KJV only issue.
Most of the English Bibles that preceded the KJV read as the KJV.
Tyndale Bible
Jude 1:4 For ther are certayne craftely crept in of which it was write afore tyme vnto soche iudgemet. They are vngodly and turne the grace of oure God vnto wantannes and denye God the only Lorde and oure Lorde Iesus Christ.
Coverdale Bible
Jude 1:4 For there are certayne craftely crept in, of which it was wrytten afore tyme vnto soche iudgement. They are vngodly, and turne the grace of oure God vnto wantanes, and denye God the onely LORDE, and oure LORDE Iesus Christ.
Matthews Bible
Jude 1:4 For there are certayne craftely crept in, of which it was wrytten afore tyme vnto suche iudgement. They are vngodlye & turne the grace of oure God vnto wantonnes, and denye God the onelye Lorde, and oure Lord Iesus Christe.
Great Bible
Jude 1:4 For ther are certayne vngodly men craftely crept in, of which it was written afore tyme vnto such iudgement. They turne þe grace of oure God vnto wantannes, and denye God (which is the onely Lorde) and oure Lorde Iesus Christ.
Geneva Bible
Jude 1:4 For there are certaine men crept in, which were before of olde ordeined to this condemnation: vngodly men they are which turne the grace of our God into wantonnesse, and denie God the onely Lord, and our Lord Iesus Christ.
Bishops Bible
Jude 1:4 For there are certayne vngodly men craftily crept in, which were before of olde ordeyned to this condemnation: They turne the grace of our God vnto wantonnesse, and denye God which is the only Lorde, and our Lorde Iesus Christe.
The evidence for the reading as found in most modern versions does have strong support, in terms of modern Textual Criticism that is, as this reading is supported by Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, P72 and C.
However, what we have seen is that these manuscripts within Jude are inconsistent within their agreement of one another.
Furthermore, while the modern readings create one referent in Jude 1:4 and who is being denied, this would actually go against Biblical attestation regarding 2 referents that should not be denied.
John 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
Peter refers to the knowledge of God and of Jesus. Two referents.
1 Peter 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
(1 Peter 1:1 is a translation issue of its own)
Jude himself starts his letter by distinguishing God and Jesus as two referents, sanctified by God the father and preserved in Jesus Christ.
Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
It isn’t a surprise that even here Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, C, and P72 read differently than the majority of manuscripts. While the majority have sanctified, these manuscripts read beloved.
Denying the son is denying the father, God. Therefore, it would be more consistent and align better with other biblical passages that Jude was warning that people were denying 2 referents, God and Jesus, rather than just Jesus alone.
When we put this with the very clear distinctions that Jude makes between God and Jesus throughout his letter, it would better align with scripture and the rest of Judes letter to conclude that Jude is referring to 2 referents in Jude 1:4. If we do conclude that the reading of 2 referents, and therefore, conclude the correct reading is as found in the KJV, then the reading “Jesus” in Jude 1:5 would no longer be “wholly appropriate” based on the reading of verse 4.
In the end I am of the opinion that the KJV is correct. This is based, I will admit, predominantly on my beliefs regarding the KJV, the Majority texts and especially on the Alexandrian manuscripts in particular of which I have written much, all available on this website.
If you liked this study please subscribe here
You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here
Join our Patreon membership
here
0 Comments