crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
Ran across this for the first time last night.
Jude5
ESV
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.
I've never heard of people bringing this out as a witness to Jesus' divinity. So I started looking at other translations. The only other translations where Jesus occurs are the NLT and the NET translations. If this reading holds - what a great apologetic!
NET
5 Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.
NLT
5 So I want to remind you, though you already know these things, that Jesus first rescued the nation of Israel from Egypt, but later he destroyed those who did not remain faithful.
For comparison sake here is the
KJV
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.
It comes down to textual criticism and selection of manuscripts. An interesting thing is the the majority text reads kurios or Lord. The earliest/best (according to the critical school) manuscripts read Ἰησοῦς (Jesus). Now here is the twist. Commentators and translators who usually argue for the earliest/best manuscripts went against their methodology on this case and chose kurios. I see this as a study in presuppositions. I would love to hear some thoughts from those who have studied Greek. Here are some relevent passages from commentaries:
Jude5
ESV
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.
I've never heard of people bringing this out as a witness to Jesus' divinity. So I started looking at other translations. The only other translations where Jesus occurs are the NLT and the NET translations. If this reading holds - what a great apologetic!
NET
5 Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.
NLT
5 So I want to remind you, though you already know these things, that Jesus first rescued the nation of Israel from Egypt, but later he destroyed those who did not remain faithful.
For comparison sake here is the
KJV
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.
It comes down to textual criticism and selection of manuscripts. An interesting thing is the the majority text reads kurios or Lord. The earliest/best (according to the critical school) manuscripts read Ἰησοῦς (Jesus). Now here is the twist. Commentators and translators who usually argue for the earliest/best manuscripts went against their methodology on this case and chose kurios. I see this as a study in presuppositions. I would love to hear some thoughts from those who have studied Greek. Here are some relevent passages from commentaries:
Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.
24 tc ‡ The reading ᾿Ιησοῦς (Iēsous, “Jesus”) is deemed too hard by several scholars, since it involves the notion of Jesus acting in the early history of the nation Israel. However, not only does this reading enjoy the strongest support from a variety of early witnesses (e.g., A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881 2344 pc vg co Or1739mg), but the plethora of variants demonstrate that scribes were uncomfortable with it, for they seemed to exchange κύριος (kurios, “Lord”) or θεός (theos, “God”) for ᾿Ιησοῦς (though P72 has the intriguing reading θεὸς Χριστός [theos Christos, “God Christ“] for ᾿Ιησοῦς). In addition to the evidence supplied in NA27 for this reading, note also {88 322 323 424c 665 915 2298 eth Cyr Hier Bede}. As difficult as the reading ᾿Ιησοῦς is, in light of v. 4 and in light of the progress of revelation (Jude being one of the last books in the NT to be composed), it is wholly appropriate.
sn The construction our Master and Lord, Jesus Christ in v. 4 follows Granville Sharp’s rule (see note on Lord). The construction strongly implies the deity of Christ. This is followed by a statement that Jesus was involved in the salvation (and later judgment) of the Hebrews. He is thus to be identified with the Lord God, Yahweh. Verse 5, then, simply fleshes out what is implicit in v. 4.
Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (657). London; New York: United Bible Societies.
ver. 5 πάντα ὅτι [ὁ] κύριος ἅπαξ {D}{D} {D} The letter {D}, which occurs only rarely, indicates that the Committee had great difficulty in arriving at a decision. In fact, among the {D} decisions sometimes none of the variant readings commended itself as original, and therefore the only recourse was to print the least unsatisfactory reading.
Despite the weighty attestation supporting Ἰησοῦς (A B 33 81 322 323 424c 665 1241 1739 1881 2298 2344 vg copsa, 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.
[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. It is possible, however, that (as Hort conjectured) “the original text had only ὁ, and that οτιο was read as οτιΙΧ and perhaps as οτιΚΧ” (“Notes on Select Readings,” ad loc.).
The origin of the variations in the position of ἅπαξ is best explained by assuming that it originally stood after εἰδότας (as in P72 A B C2 L 049 33 81 104 181 326 330 436 451 629 945 1877 2127 al); because, however, the word did not seem to suit εἰδότας, and because the following τὸ δεύτερον appeared to call for a word like πρῶτον, ἅπαξ was moved within the ὅτι-clause so as to qualify σώσας.2 B.M.M. and A.W.]
Bauckham, R. J. (2002). Vol. 50: Word Biblical Commentary : 2 Peter, Jude. Word Biblical Commentary (43). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
b. Most mss read κύριος (or ὁ κύριος), but some important mss and versions (A B vg copsa, bo eth Origen) have Ἰησοῦς, a few have ὁ θεός, and P72 has θεός χριστός. Probably κύριος should be preferred since it could have given rise to the other readings as attempts to resolve the ambiguity in κύριος (cf. the similar readings at 1 Cor 10:9). It is not likely that Jude would have used Ἰησοῦς of the preexistent Christ (despite Hanson, Jesus Christ, 165–67; F. F. Bruce, This is That [Exeter: Paternoster, 1968] 35–36): other NT examples ([esv]2 Cor 8:9[/esv]; [esv]Phil 2:5–6[/esv]; and perhaps [esv]Heb 2:9[/esv]) have the Incarnation directly in view. Nor could Jude have used Ἰησοῦς for the OT Joshua (as Jerome, In Jovin. 1.21, thought; also Kellett, “Note”; Wikgren, “Problems,” 148–49) since Joshua did not destroy the unbelievers (v 5b) or keep the angels in chains (v 6). In the second century, however, the coincidence of names between Joshua son of Nun and Jesus Christ was frequently exploited in the interests of typology (Barn. 12:8; Justin, Dial. 24.2; 75.1–2; Clement Alex., Paed. 1.60.3), and Joshua as a type of Jesus could be said to have led the people out of Egypt (Justin, Dial. 120.3). This typology could not have been intended by Jude (since it could not apply to v 6, which has the same subject), but could have attracted a scribe (who could miss its pitfalls) and account for his changing κύριος to Ἰησοῦς, rather than to Χριστός (which would, as Spitta objects, be expected otherwise, and is the corresponding variant in [esv]1 Cor 10:9[/esv]). mss manuscript(s)
A Codex Alexandrinus
B Codex Vaticanus or MT MS, edited by Jacob ben Chayim, Venice (1524/25)
vg Latin Vulgate (as published in Weber’s edition)
cop Coptic versions
P Pesher (commentary)
cf. confer, compare
Dial. Dialogue with Trypho
Paed. Clement of Alexandria, Paedadodus
Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953-2001). Vol. 16: New Testament commentary : Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude.
b. Divine deliveranceThe first example comes from Israel’s history, when “the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt.” God considered Israel his special people. With many miracles he brought this nation out of Egypt and set his people free from slavery. Once again the Greek text has some variant readings. Translators favor the reading Lord, which they have chosen from the variants “Jesus,” “God,” and even “God Christ.”22 Consult Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, Word Commentary series, vol. 50 (Waco: Word, 1983), p. 49.
The question remains, however, whether the expression Lord refers to God or to the preexistent Christ.22 Scripture presents support for both readings. For instance, Paul says that the spiritual rock that accompanied the Israelites in the desert was Christ ([esv]I Cor. 10:4[/esv]).23 Yet the Old Testament narrative reveals that God destroyed the unbelievers in the desert ([esv]Num. 14:29–37[/esv]; [esv]Heb. 3:17–19[/esv]). If the subject of verse 5 in Jude’s epistle is uncertain, verse 6 definitely points to God. Not Jesus but God consigned fallen angels to dark prisons (compare [esv]II Peter 2:4[/esv]). Accordingly, I interpret the term Lord in verse 5 to refer to God.
23 Charles Biggs declares, “By ‘the Lord’ is no doubt meant Christ.” A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, International Critical Commentary series (1901; Edinburgh: Clark, 1961), p. 328.
Bruce, F. F. (1982). The Epistle to the Galatians : A commentary on the Greek text. Includes indexes. (217). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.
On Galatians 4:21-5"1
‘This is an allegory’, says Paul, or ‘these are allegorical entities’, each of them corresponding to a reality in the new situation (cf. NIV: ‘these things may be taken figuratively’). He is not thinking of allegory in the Philonic sense (allegory in the Philonic sense was introduced into Christian interpretation with Origen and his successors); he has in mind that form of allegory which is commonly called typology: a narrative from OT history is interpreted in terms of the new covenant, or (to put it the other way round) an aspect of the new covenant is presented in terms of an OT narrative. Typology presupposes that salvation-history displays a recurring pattern of divine action: thus the exilic prophets portrayed their people’s return from Babylon in terms of a second Exodus, and the NT writers portray the Christian redemption in terms both of the Exodus and of the return from Babylon. Paul supplies simple examples of such typology when he says that ‘Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed’ ([esv]1 Cor. 5:7[/esv]) or shows how the people of Christ in this age experience their own counterparts of the Red Sea passage, the manna, the water from the rock and the vicissitudes of the wilderness wanderings ([esv]1 Cor. 10:1–11[/esv]). The exodus typology in particular was widespread in the NT period (cf. [esv]Heb. 3:7–4:11[/esv]; Jude 5). NIV New International Version
Reymond, R. L. (1998). A new systematic theology of the Christian faith. Lectures delivered at Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Mo. and Knox Theological Seminary, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (296). Nashville: T. Nelson.
But Jude implies still more. In addition to the six direct references to Jesus by name, there is reason to think that he had Jesus in mind when he refers to “the Lord” in verses 5 and 14. Consider the latter context first. Regardless of who the referent is in 1 Enoch 1:4–9, it seems that Jude intended to refer to Jesus when he wrote: “Behold, the Lord will come [ἤλθεν, ēlthen, an aorist with prophetic (future) intention] with his myriad holy ones” (see [esv]Matt. 16:27[/esv]; 25:31; [esv]Mark 8:38[/esv]; [esv]Luke 9:26[/esv]; [esv]1 Thess. 3:13[/esv]; [esv]2 Thess. 1:7–10[/esv]). In light of consentient Christian testimony, no other referent will suffice. But then, this being so, Jude here ascribes the divine prerogative of eschatological judgment to Jesus.pg. 296
In the former verse (Jude 5), apart from the fact that “Jesus” may well be the original reading instead of “Lord,” there is every reason to believe that Jesus may still have been Jude’s intended referent. Consider the following facts. First, there is no question that Jude employed “Lord” to refer to Jesus four times (vv. 4, 17, 21, 25). Second, we have just seen that the almost certain referent of “Lord” in verse 14 is Jesus. And third, this occurrence of “Lord” in verse 5 comes hard on the heels of Jude’s certain reference to Jesus in the immediately preceding verse as “our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” So it is not only possible but also virtually certain that it is to Jesus, in his preincarnate state as the Yahweh of the Old Testament, that he ascribes, first, the deliverance of Israel from Egypt and then the destruction of those within the nation who rebelled; second, the judgment of the angels at the time of their primeval fall; and third, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. And if this is so, Jude was clearly thinking of Jesus Christ in terms that encompass the Old Testament Deity. But however one interprets this last verse, it is apparent from the others that, for Jude, Christ was the sovereign Master and Lord of men, who at his coming will exercise the prerogative to dispense eschatological salvation and judgment as the Savior and Judge of men. There can be no doubt that for him Christ was divine.
Last edited: