# Jude 5 and "Jesus"



## Michael (Jun 2, 2011)

> 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.



In this recent thread Randy pointed out that the ESV translation of "Jesus" here is rare. The only others I could find [in English] that specifically name the 2nd Person of the Trinity in this verse are the New Living Translation, Wycliffe New Testament, and the ever popular Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. 

Would anyone care to shed some light on the choice made in these translations?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jun 2, 2011)

The HCSB has a note that other manuscripts have "Jesus" or "God." I have no clue which manuscripts.

---------- Post added at 09:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------

The Pulpit Commentary says that the best manuscripts have "Jesus."


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 2, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> The HCSB has a note that other manuscripts have "Jesus" or "God." I have no clue which manuscripts.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 09:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------
> 
> The Pulpit Commentary says that the best manuscripts have "Jesus."



A quick look at the Nestle Aland critical apparatus tells me that they find "Jesus" in the Alexandrinus (around 5th century) and the 
Vaticanus (from around 4th century). Whether you think those are the "best manuscripts" is a whole 'nother story. 

Edit to add: Metzger offers a long explanation as to why the committee decided not to go with the reading of "Jesus", even though the normal principles he followed would practially demand it (because he likes the Vaticanus and Alexandrinus). The main difficulty was the committee could not believe that Jude would write such a thing. They note that Jude uses "Jesus Christ" everywhere else and not the single word "Jesus." Metzger seems to think the committee was wrong (but does not come out and say it) saying that the early copyists, "truck by the strange and unparalleled mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption out of Egypt. . ., would have substituted (the Lord)."

In any event, even Critical Text folks were reluctant to go with this version until fairly recently, it appears.


----------



## torstar (Jun 2, 2011)

Just when I could practically use my Comfort NT Text and Translation Commentary I cannot find it.


----------

