*I had posted this over on another thread, but the topic has since shifted for the worse, so here I present, as promised to cfultz3, this little article I put together concerning the textual issue of Jude 5.
In a previous post I introduced a reading of Jude 5 which some of you may, or may not be aware of. It reads as follows, “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.” The purpose of this post is to observe the variant data surrounding Jude 5, to discuss which variant is most probable, and to unveil a bit of history surrounding early corruption of texts which attest to the pre-existence of Christ.
For those not familiar with textual criticism, it is the science which attempts to determine the original reading of a particular text. There are particular guidelines that textual critics use to determine the authenticity of a reading or a text. On pp. 275-276 of The Text of the New Testament, Kurt and Barbara Aland list these “Twelve Basic Rules for Textual Criticism.” Of those twelve, I list six (which are in no way listed in numeric order) that pertain directly to the text under discussion.
(1) Only the reading which best satisfies the requirements of both external and internal criteria can be original.
(2) Criticism of the text must always begin from the evidence of the manuscript tradition and only afterward turn to a consideration of internal criteria.
(3) Internal criteria (the context of the passage, its style and vocabulary, the theological environment of the author, etc.) can never be the sole basis for a critical decision, especially in opposition to external evidence.
(4) Furthermore, manuscripts should be weighed, not counted, and the peculiar traits of each manuscript should be duly considered. However important the early papyri, or a particular uncial, or a minuscule may be, there is no single manuscript or group of manuscripts that can be followed mechanically, even though certain combinations of witnesses may deserve a greater degree of confidence than others. Rather, decisions in textual criticism must be worked out afresh, passage by passage (the local principle).
(5) The reconstruction of a stemma of readings for each variant (the genealogical principle) is an extremely important device, because the reading which can most easily explain the derivation of the other forms is itself most likely the original.
(6) There is truth 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.
Though there are several variants at Jude 5, there are four readings which can pose a great significance, theologically: (a) “Jesus,” (b) “Lord,” (c) “God Christ,” and (d) “God.” I have placed the term “once” in brackets, however, some witnesses which are listed do omit the term. The textual support for each variant includes,
(a) Jesus, who [once] saved – A B 33 81 88 322 323 424[SUP]c [/SUP]655 915 1241 1739 1881 2298 2344 cop[SUP]sa, bo [/SUP]eth vg pc Origen Cyril[SUP]Alex [/SUP]Jerome
(b) the Lord, who [once] saved – א C Ψ 945 1175 436 945 1505 1611 2138 1067 1175 1292 1409 1735 1844 syr[SUP]ph[/SUP]
(c) God Christ, who [once] saved – p[SUP]72
[/SUP]
(d) God, who [once] saved - C[SUP]2[/SUP] syr[SUP]p, h [/SUP]Clement[SUP]Alex[/SUP]
For the purpose of this study I will not be focusing attention on the variant readings, “God,” or “God Christ” due to insufficient support. Although, these variants are rather intriguing, they are not well established. The other two variants (“Jesus,” and “Lord”) have much broader geographic distribution, and therefore I will direct my full attention to those two readings.
In order to determine which of these two variants is the authentic, we will follow the guidelines as laid out above.
By a quick gloss of the textual evidence above, one may come to conclude that the textual evidence is somewhat equal in terms of manuscript support. However, this conclusion would be too hasty, and doesn’t seem to observe a number of factors, including manuscript traditions, geographic distribution, transmission through history, nor the historical context.
Brief Synopsis of the External Data
Both variants have solid geographic distribution, and are attested for in the three primary groupings we call “text-types”: Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western. However, of these, only a couple mss which support “Lord” date back as early as the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] and 5[SUP]th[/SUP] centuries (א C), most of these mss are dated to the 9[SUP]th[/SUP]-11[SUP]th[/SUP] centuries. Numerous Greek, and versional witnesses which date back to early 4[SUP]th[/SUP] and 5[SUP]th[/SUP] centuries attest to “Jesus,” including A B cop[SUP]sa, bo [/SUP]vg eth pc (on this point, it should be noted that because miniscule 33 and A have much in common they very well may have a common ancestor). This strand of data seems to indicate that during the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] and the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] centuries that “Jesus” was the wider attested, and more prominent reading. Patristic resources certainly do seem to favor this point (Cyril[SUP]Alex[/SUP] Jerome). Further, while B was compiled during the early 4[SUP]th[/SUP] c., because it has been found to agree very closely with even earlier papyri (i.e., p[SUP]75[/SUP] p[SUP]72[/SUP]) which are dated to the beginning of the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] century, this demonstrates by recourse to a postulated earlier exemplar from which these earlier papyri and B descend. “In English,” so-to-speak, this means that Vaticanus (B) is representative of an even earlier archetype, perhaps 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] century, but no later than early 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] c. (Origen[SUP]1739mg[/SUP]). Justin Martyr (AD 100-ca. 160) may have had Jude 5 in mind while interacting with Trypho the Jew in Chapter CXX of Dialogue with Trypho,
“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.’ And it is plain that this was spoken not of Judah, but of Christ. For all we out of all nations do expect not Judah, but Jesus, who led your fathers out of Egypt.”
Though it may be difficult to determine whether or not Justin had Jude 5 in mind, there can be little doubt that he believed Christ to be present in the times of the exodus.
In light of the age, early prominence, and historical transmission of the text, “Jesus” certainly has the edge in terms of external evidence.
The Historical Context & the Origin of Variants
Scholarship has postulated divergent theories over the origin of these various variants that occur here at Jude 5. Some believe that a scribe may have made an error when copying (“error of the eye/pen”) the nomina sacra (IC [“Jesus”] vs. KC [“Lord”] vs. OC [“God”]), and, therefore, is the primary cause for the various readings.
Others, such as Richard Bauckham suggest the idea of a Joshua-Jesus typology by way of 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] century scribal corruption, and is therefore the reason why many mss read “Jesus” rather than “Lord.”
However, neither of these options really seem to carry much weight. It is difficult to see how Bauckham’s theory could lead to a modification from “Lord” to “Jesus,” particularly when the text further speaks of one, “…who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, He has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day.” Joshua neither rescued the people from Egypt, nor destroyed them in the wilderness, and most certainly did not bind the fallen angels.
On closer examination, the variants appear to be, rather than copyist errors, intentional changes. The scribal emendation of C[SUP]2[/SUP] (“God”) seems to indicate that a scribe even took issue with Ephraemi’s primary reading of Jude 5, “Lord” (also see 424[SUP]c[/SUP]). Often times Alexandrian scribes replaced the highly specific terms “Jesus” or “Christ” with the less specific terms “Lord” and “God” because in the context they seem to be anachronistic. If the original had been “Lord,” it seems unlikely that a scribe would have willingly created a difficulty by substituting the more specific “Jesus.” Moreover, even if not motivated by a tendency to overcorrect, a scribe might be likely to assimilate the word “Jesus” to “Lord” in conformity with OT passages.
Whether this be the case here with Jude 5 is really uncertain. I am of the opinion that at a very early period in the Christian era, perhaps 2[SUP]nd [/SUP]or 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] century, there seems to have been theological motive that could have promulgated these variant readings.
The Early Church Fathers frequently speak of the corruption of Scripture by unorthodox figures of the past. In Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica (Book V), Artemon, Asclepiades, Hermophilus, and Theodotus are charged with Biblical corruption on a grand scale, denying both, the Divinity of Christ, as well as His pre-existence. I quote at length, Book V, from Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica,
In a laborious work by one of these writers against the heresy of Artemon, which Paul of Samosata attempted to revive again in our day, there is an account appropriate to the history which we are now examining.
For he criticises, as a late innovation, the above-mentioned heresy which teaches that the Saviour was a mere man, because they were attempting to magnify it as ancient. Having given in his work many other arguments in refutation of their blasphemous falsehood, he adds the following words:
For they say that all the early teachers and the apostles received and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter, but that from his successor, Zephyrinus, the truth had been corrupted.
And what they say might be plausible, if first of all the Divine Scriptures did not contradict them. And there are writings of certain brethren older than the times of Victor, which they wrote in behalf of the truth against the heathen, and against the heresies which existed in their day. I refer to Justin and Miltiades and Tatian and Clement and many others, in all of whose works Christ is spoken of as God.
For who does not know the works of Irenæus and of Melito and of others which teach that Christ is God and man? And how many psalms and hymns, written by the faithful brethren from the beginning, celebrate Christ the Word of God, speaking of him as Divine.
How then since the opinion held by the Church has been preached for so many years, can its preaching have been delayed as they affirm, until the times of Victor? And how is it that they are not ashamed to speak thus falsely of Victor, knowing well that he cut off from communion Theodotus, the cobbler, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, and the first to declare that Christ is mere man? For if Victor agreed with their opinions, as their slander affirms, how came he to cast out Theodotus, the inventor of this heresy?
So much in regard to Victor. His bishopric lasted ten years, and Zephyrinus was appointed his successor about the ninth year of the reign of Severus. The author of the above-mentioned book, concerning the founder of this heresy, narrates another event which occurred in the time of Zephyrinus, using these words:
I will remind many of the brethren of a fact which took place in our time, which, had it happened in Sodom, might, I think, have proved a warning to them. There was a certain confessor, Natalius, not long ago, but in our own day.
This man was deceived at one time by Asclepiodotus and another Theodotus, a money-changer. Both of them were disciples of Theodotus, the cobbler, who, as I have said, was the first person excommunicated by Victor, bishop at that time, on account of this sentiment, or rather senselessness.
Natalius was persuaded by them to allow himself to be chosen bishop of this heresy with a salary, to be paid by them, of one hundred and fifty denarii a month.
When he had thus connected himself with them, he was warned oftentimes by the Lord through visions. For the compassionate God and our Lord Jesus Christ was not willing that a witness of his own sufferings, being cast out of the Church, should perish.
But as he paid little regard to the visions, because he was ensnared by the first position among them and by that shameful covetousness which destroys a great many, he was scourged by holy angels, and punished severely through the entire night. Thereupon having risen in the morning, he put on sackcloth and covered himself with ashes, and with great haste and tears he fell down before Zephyrinus, the bishop, rolling at the feet not only of the clergy, but also of the laity; and he moved with his tears the compassionate Church of the merciful Christ. And though he used much supplication, and showed the welts of the stripes which he had received, yet scarcely was he taken back into communion.
We will add from the same writer some other extracts concerning them, which run as follows:
They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of ancient faith; and Christ they have not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it.
And as being of the earth and speaking of the earth, and as ignorant of him who comes from above, they forsake the holy writings of God to devote themselves to geometry. Euclid is laboriously measured by some of them; and Aristotle and Theophrastus are admired; and Galen, perhaps, by some is even worshipped.
But that those who use the arts of unbelievers for their heretical opinions and adulterate the simple faith of the Divine Scriptures by the craft of the godless, are far from the faith, what need is there to say? Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them.
That I am not speaking falsely of them in this matter, whoever wishes may learn. For if any one will collect their respective copies, and compare them one with another, he will find that they differ greatly.
Those of Asclepiades, for example, do not agree with those of Theodotus. And many of these can be obtained, because their disciples have assiduously written the corrections, as they call them, that is the corruptions, of each of them. Again, those of Hermophilus do not agree with these, and those of Apollonides are not consistent with themselves. For you can compare those prepared by them at an earlier date with those which they corrupted later, and you will find them widely different.
But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else are they than demoniacs? For they cannot deny the commission of the crime, since the copies have been written by their own hands. For they did not receive such Scriptures from their instructors, nor can they produce any copies from which they were transcribed.
But some of them have not thought it worth while to corrupt them, but simply deny the law and the prophets, and thus through their lawless and impious teaching under pretense of grace, have sunk to the lowest depths of perdition.
Let this suffice for these things.
In Simon J. Gathercole's The Pre-existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (pg. 39), he mentions that Origen's written work known as the Stromateis, tells of people in his day tampering with pre-existence texts. Gathercole also mentions an anonymous workknown as The Little Labyrinth which provides evidence of altering of such passages by some of those who are mentioned here in Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica: Aclepiodotus, Theodotus, Hermophilus, and Apollonius. We can perhaps see this at work in Jude 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”), as well as 1 Corinthians 10.9 (“We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents”). Thus, it is easy to see how “Jesus” could have given rise to the other readings which we have, and is more difficult to argue that the change would have gone the other way (especially when an orthodox scribe could have potentially made many intentional changes elsewhere).
