-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
1)He was sent to be their ruler and deliverer by God himself, through the angel who appeared to him in the bush.
Acts 7:35
2)This is the Moses who told the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your own people.’[SUP][h][/SUP] [SUP]38 [/SUP]He was in the assembly in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai
Acts 7:38
3)[SUP] [/SUP]Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up [SUP]10 [/SUP]and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. [SUP]11 [/SUP]But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.
The elders saw Christ
Ex24:9-11
Sorry EG
I really don't want to discuss this with you. I like you, and you have not made extra biblical demands unto salvation, which is my only beef here. I would like to leave it there. I didn't even want to respond to you, but I can't win either way. If I don't I'll be accused of ducking a reply
I hope you will leave it at that
Can I answer every question put to me on this subject?
No!
Has anyone ever been able to forthrightly answer every question I have put to them on this subject?
No! and that includes ministers
As an act of good fatih, for I like you, I put no questions or scripture to you, I would like to leave it there
I need a break from this anyway, been at it for too long
Acts 7:35
2)This is the Moses who told the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your own people.’[SUP][h][/SUP] [SUP]38 [/SUP]He was in the assembly in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai
Acts 7:38
3)[SUP] [/SUP]Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up [SUP]10 [/SUP]and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. [SUP]11 [/SUP]But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.
The elders saw Christ
Ex24:9-11
Sorry EG
I really don't want to discuss this with you. I like you, and you have not made extra biblical demands unto salvation, which is my only beef here. I would like to leave it there. I didn't even want to respond to you, but I can't win either way. If I don't I'll be accused of ducking a reply
I hope you will leave it at that
Can I answer every question put to me on this subject?
No!
Has anyone ever been able to forthrightly answer every question I have put to them on this subject?
No! and that includes ministers
As an act of good fatih, for I like you, I put no questions or scripture to you, I would like to leave it there
I need a break from this anyway, been at it for too long
There's no argument to have, though I know that is what you thrive on
In effect you believe eternal life hinges on a belief not plainly written in scripture, I guess if it was, that would take the fun out of your life!
I don't care how you try and twist it, but Christ laid down who a person must believe him to be to inherit eternal life, you do not accept that , but add to it
You need to find someone who revels in theological debate as you do.
I deal in what the bible ACTUALLY STATES and like I say, even Trinitarian ministers. freely admit to me there is no plain scripture that states Christ is the one true God, let alone that eternal life hinges on believing it
In effect you believe eternal life hinges on a belief not plainly written in scripture, I guess if it was, that would take the fun out of your life!
I don't care how you try and twist it, but Christ laid down who a person must believe him to be to inherit eternal life, you do not accept that , but add to it
You need to find someone who revels in theological debate as you do.
I deal in what the bible ACTUALLY STATES and like I say, even Trinitarian ministers. freely admit to me there is no plain scripture that states Christ is the one true God, let alone that eternal life hinges on believing it
Last edited:
Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Holy Spirit of the Right Hand of The Father, God. He is also called the Captain of the host of the Lord in the Old Testament, and the priest forever after the order of Melchisidec.
I would encourage all who don't know that Jesus is God to first figure out who the Captain of the host of the Lord is, and the preist forever after the order of Melchisidec (they were both worshiped, and approved to be worshiped). If you don't know know who these two men are in the old testament (the high priest with no beginning or measure), then you don't fully understand the everlasting priesthood (Christians are the everlasting priesthood, well, Christians in spirit and in truth). Nobody calling themselves a Christian is even close to understanding who they are, where they're from, what their job is, etc., if they don't understand the everlasting priesthood.
Jos 5:13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?
Jos 5:14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?
Jos 5:15 And the captain of the LORD'S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.
Heb 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
Heb 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Gen 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
Gen 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
First of all, tithe is worship (although the everlasting high priesthood cannot tithe to itself, so now we should understand the commonwealth of israel now that we have the Holy Spirit). Second of all, we see Melchisedec also in this passage...
Gen 18:1 And the LORD (
H3068
יהוה
y[SUP]ehôvâh
[/SUP][SUP]
yeh-ho-vaw'
From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.)
[/SUP]appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
Gen 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
Gen 18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
Gen 18:4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
Gen 18:5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.
Gen 18:6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.
Gen 18:7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.
Gen 18:8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.
God is a spirit, soul, and earthen vessel with no beginning and no measure. We have a beginning, and a measure.
I would encourage all who don't know that Jesus is God to first figure out who the Captain of the host of the Lord is, and the preist forever after the order of Melchisidec (they were both worshiped, and approved to be worshiped). If you don't know know who these two men are in the old testament (the high priest with no beginning or measure), then you don't fully understand the everlasting priesthood (Christians are the everlasting priesthood, well, Christians in spirit and in truth). Nobody calling themselves a Christian is even close to understanding who they are, where they're from, what their job is, etc., if they don't understand the everlasting priesthood.
Jos 5:13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?
Jos 5:14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?
Jos 5:15 And the captain of the LORD'S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.
Heb 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
Heb 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Gen 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
Gen 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
First of all, tithe is worship (although the everlasting high priesthood cannot tithe to itself, so now we should understand the commonwealth of israel now that we have the Holy Spirit). Second of all, we see Melchisedec also in this passage...
Gen 18:1 And the LORD (
H3068
יהוה
y[SUP]ehôvâh
[/SUP][SUP]
yeh-ho-vaw'
From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.)
[/SUP]appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
Gen 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
Gen 18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
Gen 18:4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
Gen 18:5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.
Gen 18:6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.
Gen 18:7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.
Gen 18:8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.
God is a spirit, soul, and earthen vessel with no beginning and no measure. We have a beginning, and a measure.
G
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.
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,
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,
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 wekk as His pre-existence. I quote at length, Book V, from Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica,
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 ex*ternal 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 con*fidence 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.
(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 con*fidence 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]
(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 wekk 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).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.
Last edited:
J
Jud 1:5 KJV - 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.
Once again an incorrect interpretation of an incorrect interpretation of an incorrect interpretation.
Once again an incorrect interpretation of an incorrect interpretation of an incorrect interpretation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: You're slipping....
Glad you mentioned that. I am putting you on permenant ignore immediately, as I will anyone who posts to me refusing to accept the words of Jesus who spoke the word of God on this earth in relation to any salvational requirement of belief He set down by adding to it. That should give me a much more peaceful life on this website
Just checking-out that 'ignore' button of yours...!
Last edited: