# Jude 5 - Jesus or Lord - saved a people out of the land of Egypt?



## crhoades (Jan 28, 2007)

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:



> 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}
> 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.
> ...


 


> 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)
> 
> ...


 


> 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 deliverance_​The 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.”
> 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.​22 Consult Richard J. Bauckham, _Jude, 2 Peter_, Word Commentary series, vol. 50 (Waco: Word, 1983), p. 49.
> 
> 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.
> 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.​pg. 296


----------



## crhoades (Jan 28, 2007)

Another interesting text to add to the mix:

ESV *Judges 2:1* *Now the angel of the LORD* went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, "*I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers.* I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you, 

Also referenced above:
Num. 14
20 Then the *LORD* said, "I have pardoned, according to your word. 21 But truly, as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD, 22 none of the men who have *seen my glory and my signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness*, and yet have put me to the test these ten times and have not obeyed my voice, 23 shall see the land that I swore to give to their fathers. And none of those who despised me shall see it. 2


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 28, 2007)

Interesting connections. I'm also interested in people's thoughts on this.


----------



## PresReformed (Jan 29, 2007)

Here is another....

1 Corinthians 10:9 Neither let us tempt *Christ*, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 

Numbers 21:6 And the *LORD* sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Jan 29, 2007)

PresReformed said:


> Here is another....
> 
> 1 Corinthians 10:9 Neither let us tempt *Christ*, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
> 
> Numbers 21:6 And the *LORD* sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.


What is the context of the tempting of Christ? Are you suggesting tempting wrath from God?


----------



## PresReformed (Jan 29, 2007)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> What is the context of the tempting of Christ? Are you suggesting tempting wrath from God?



I'm not sure that I understand your question. Paul is clearly identifying Christ with the LORD in Numbers 21:6.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 29, 2007)

Interesting discussion. Apart from the issue of the variants and their texttypes, the matter of the nomenclature of the divine Persons is of great significance. Paul does, as has been noted, speak of Christ (Messiah) being the spiritual rock the Israelites drank from; we know also that the Savior of the elect people of God in Old Testament times was none other than “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8). What I wonder concerning is the appropriateness of referring to OT appearances or activities of God the Son (aka “the Angel of the Lord” or even Jehovah) by His _mediatorial_ identity and name as a _man_, a human being. The “_man_ Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5) had not yet been born when the Jews “passed through the sea”. Am I amiss to stick strictly to the Biblical terminology and apply the name Jesus only to God as He was manifest in the flesh? Is it not an anachronism to do otherwise?

Steve


----------



## crhoades (Jan 29, 2007)

PresReformed said:


> Here is another....
> 
> 1 Corinthians 10:9 Neither let us tempt *Christ*, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
> 
> Numbers 21:6 And the *LORD* sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.


 
Interestingly enough, 1Cor. 10:9 also has the same variants of Lord and Christ. But in this case the majority of the translations went with Christ. Here are the relevant commentaries:



> Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). _The NET Bible First Edition Notes_ (1 Co 10:9). Biblical Studies Press.
> 
> 6 *tc* Χριστόν (_Christon_, “Christ”) is attested in the majority of mss, including many important witnesses of the Alexandrian (P46 1739 1881) and Western (D F G) texttypes, and other mss and versions (Ψ latt sy co). On the other hand, some of the important Alexandrian witnesses have κύριον (_kurion_, “Lord”; אB C P 33 104 1175 _al_). A few mss (A 81 _pc_) have θεόν (_theon_,“God”). The _nomina sacra _for these readings are quite similar (ΧΝ, ΚΝ, and ΘΝ respectively), so one might be able to account for the different readings by way of confusion. On closer examination, the variants appear to be intentional changes. Alexandrian scribes replaced the highly specific term “Christ” with the less specific terms “Lord” and “God” because in the context it seems to be anachronistic to speak of the exodus generation putting _Christ_ to the test. If the original had been “Lord,” it seems unlikely that a scribe would have willingly created a difficulty by substituting the more specific “Christ.” Moreover, even if not motivated by a tendency to overcorrect, a scribe might be likely to assimilate the word “Christ” to “Lord” in conformity with [esv]Deut 6:16[/esv] or other passages. The evidence from the early church regarding the reading of this verse is rather compelling in favor of “Christ.” Marcion, a second-century, anti-Jewish heretic, would naturally have opposed any reference to Christ in historical involvement with Israel, because he thought of the Creator God of the OT as inherently evil. In spite of this strong prejudice, though, {Marcion} read a text with “Christ.” Other early church writers attest to the presence of the word “Christ,” including {Clement of Alexandria} and Origen. What is more, the synod of Antioch in a.d. 268 used the reading “Christ” as evidence of the preexistence of Christ when it condemned Paul of Samosata. (See G. Zuntz, _The Text of the Epistles_, 126–27; _TCGNT_ 494; C. D. Osburn, “The Text of 1 Corinthians 10:9, ” _New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis_, 201–11; _contra _A. Robertson and A. Plummer, _First Corinthians_ [ICC], 205–6.) Since “Christ” is the more difficult reading on all accounts, it is almost certainly original. In addition, “Christ” is consistent with Paul’s style in this passage (cf. 10:4, a text in which {Marcion} also reads “Christ”). This text is also christologically significant, since the reading “Christ” makes an explicit claim to the preexistence of Christ. (The textual critic faces a similar dilemma in Jude 5. In a similar exodus context, some of the more important Alexandrian mss [A B 33 81 _pc_] and the Vulgate read “Jesus” in place of “Lord.” Two of those mss [A 81] are the same mss that have “Christ” instead of “God” in 1 Cor 10:9. See the *tc* notes on Jude 5 for more information.) In sum, “Christ” has all the earmarks of authenticity here and should be considered the original reading.​ICC International Critical Commentary (a commentary series)
> Vulgate The Vulgate version of the Bible in Latin


 


> 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.)_ (494). London; New York: United Bible Societies.
> 
> 
> *10.9* Χριστόν {B}
> ...


 


> Thiselton, A. C. (2000). _The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A commentary on the Greek text_ (740). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
> 
> *9* (1) Χριστόν is attested by the earliest MS. P46, together with D, E, F, G, K, and early patristic writers in a variety of local regions: Irenaeus (Lyons); Ephraem (Edessa), Clement (Alexandria), Old Latin, Vulgate, Syriac, Sahidic, and Bohairic. However, א, B, and C have τὸν κύριον, which reflects τὸν θέον (cf. LXX of Num 21:5–6; Deut 6:16, and Ps 77:18 [Ps 78:18]: _They put God to the test in their hearts by demanding food for their own desires_). Before reference could be made to P46, some older commentators suggested that “we may safely prefer τὸν κύριον.”112 However, more recent writers almost unanimously (but with exceptions) argue for τὸν Χριστόν, including Metzger, Conzelmann, Schrage, Fee, and most decisively Zuntz and the research article by C. D. Osburn.113 The major arguments in favor of accepting and retaining *Christ* (which UBS 4th ed. ranks as “B,” i.e., “almost certain”) are (a) that it is easy to understand how an original *Christ* could be changed to _the Lord_ because (i) *Christ* presupposes a Christology which identifies the _God_ of Israel (or the _angel of the Lord_) with the preexistent Christ;114 (ii) _Lord_ with _put to the test_ would be a familiar phrase from the use of Deut 6:16 in the Gospel narratives of the messianic temptations; (iii) _Lord_ would be near to LXX Num 21:5–6; Ps 77:18 [78:18]; and (b) that P46 goes back to around ad 200, and is supported by D and very early second- and third-century patristic witness from locations across the Graeco-Roman world. (2) ἀπώλοντο reflects the better א, A, and B as reading ἀπώλοντο of C, D, and G. Some MSS read ἀπώλλυντο (see below).​
> 112 Robertson and Plummer, _First Epistle, _205; so also Meyer, _First Epistle, _1:279.
> ...


 


> Ellingworth, P., Hatton, H., & Ellingworth, P. (1995). _A handbook on Paul's first letter to the Corinthians_. Rev. ed. of: A translator's handbook on Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (220). New York: United Bible Societies.
> 
> _1 Corinthians 10.9._
> 
> ...


 


> Calvin, J. (1998). _Calvin's Commentaries: 1 Corinthians_ (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries (1 Co 10:9). Albany, OR: Ages Software.
> 
> *9.*_ Neither let us tempt Christ_. This part of the exhortation refers to the history that is recorded in Numbers 21:6. For the people, having become weary of the length of time, began to complain of their condition, and to expostulate with God — “Why has God deceived us,” etc. This murmuring of the people Paul speaks of as a _tempting_; and not without good reason, for _tempting _is opposed to patience. What reason was there at that time why the people should rise up against God, except this — that, under the influence of base desire, 450 they could not wait in patience the arrival of the time appointed by the Lord? Let us, therefore, take notice, that the fountain of that evil against which Paul here warns us is impatience, when we wish to go before God, and do not give ourselves up to be ruled by Him, but rather wish to bind him to our inclination and laws. This evil God severely punished in the Israelitish people. Now he remains always like himself — a just Judge. Let us therefore not _tempt _him, if we would not have experience of the same punishment.
> 
> ...


 


> Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953-2001). _Vol. 18_: _New Testament commentary : Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians_. Accompanying biblical text is author's translation. New Testament Commentary (330). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
> 
> *9**. And let us not test Christ as some of them did and were destroyed by snakes.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 30, 2007)

Chris,

I think it appropriate for me to ask – and I speak as one responsible for the nurture, shepherding and teaching of souls – What is the upshot of all this scholarship?

You started this thread thinking “what a great apologetic” to Jesus’ divinity the ESV reading would be; I remarked above I thought it anachronistic for His name to be so used.

But briefly to the matter of the texts and variants: Does not affording this variant credibility undermine (once again) the conviction the church has a settled text of Scripture? As I have said elsewhere, “in the eyes of many there is no longer a standard of what is and what is not the Word God has given us. It is pretty much a crapshoot...”

This is how the scholars themselves assess the situation:

“In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of van Soden, we do not know the original form of the gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall” (Kirsopp Lake, _Family 13, The Ferrar Group_, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1941, p. vii).

“…it is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered” (R.M. Grant. “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” _Journal of Biblical Literature_, vol. 66, 1947, p. 173).

“…the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that skepticisim which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage” (G. Zuntz, _The Text of the Epistles_, 1953, p. 9).

“…every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that we simply do not know how to make a definitive determination as to what the best text is; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alternation of the text in the first few centuries; and accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon J. Epp, “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” _Journal of Biblical Literature_, Vol. 43, 1974, pp. 390-391).

“…we no longer think of Westcott-Hort’s ‘Neutral’ text as neutral; we no longer think of their ‘Western’ text as Western or as uniting the textual elements they selected; and, of course, we no longer think so simplistically or so confidently about recovering ‘the New Testament in the Original Greek.’…We remain largely in the dark as to how we might reconstruct the textual history that has left in its wake—in the form of MSS and fragments—numerous pieces of a puzzle that we seem incapable of fitting together. Westcott-Hort, von Soden, and others had sweeping theories (which we have largely rejected) to undergird their critical texts, but we seem now to have no such theories and no plausible sketches of the early history of the text that are widely accepted. What progress, then have we made? Are we more advanced than our predecessors when, after showing their theories to be unacceptable, we offer no such theories at all to vindicate our accepted text?” (Eldon J. Epp, “A Continuing Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” _Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism_, (Eerdman’s, 1993), pp. 114, 115).​
Consider now, where has the so-called “science” of textual criticism led us? Is it not accurate to say, Into a dead end, with no hope of escape on this route? When on a false path (I know this from the mountain wildernesses of New York) one returns whence one came, and sets out afresh.

When I am told that in the ESV’s Matthew 1 verses 7 and 10 with their notorious Asaph and Amos replacing the royal forebears of the Lord Jesus we have the authentic Greek text (reflecting the reading of the CT), with disdain I reject that assertion which posits error in the autograph of the apostle.

Vast multitudes have followed the blind textual critics nursed on the poison milk of unregenerate rationalists, and this subtle assault on the foundations of the Faith will take a greater toll than is now apparent to the eye. We need to return to when we knew the text we had was of God, and to separate from those false trails that led us into blind alleys. I know, it is a hard thing once one’s mind has been made up that the Old Trail is the bad one, and the new trails the right ones. It is hard to disentangle the mind from “evidences” supplied by…..who, ultimately, is the one who hath sown this bad seed?.....the enemies of the Faith.

A good _starter_ antidote to this poison is _The Ancient Text of the New Testament_, by Professor Jakob van Bruggen: http://web.archive.org/web/20030428225220/www.thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html. He reviews the past century’s text criticism.

Our confidence in the Word of our God is what enables us to trust Him and His promises. When our confidence is eroded, it is as the erosion of our very faith. Because of our carelessness in these matters – vaunting our advanced scholarship and great knowledge – we are endangering future generations of believers, if not our own. This erosion will increase.

I think we have been stricken with a theological malaise called *sovereignitis*, wherein we overlook and excuse the role and responsibility of men because of our knowledge of the overriding sovereignty of God. It is as if I put sugar in my gas tank – thinking to “sweeten up” my ride – and expected my car to keep running. “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” the LORD once said to His people in another controversy, and it applies to this one now, for we give misinformation to the minds of our people and expect it not to bear the fruit of disaster.

[The quotes of the text critics above I got from David Cloud's _Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions_, pp. 238, 239: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/books/bible-versions.html.]

Steve


----------



## crhoades (Jan 30, 2007)

Steve,

I appreciate your concern over the use of textual criticism. I will think through all that you have said and read through the links you provided. I even noted that the translators seemed to go against their own grain in some of the above examples. I would prefer that this thread remain focused on Jude 5 and 1 Cor. 10:9 and work through all of the interpretive issues that the variants raise. I provided commentaries on the text and asked men much more knowledgeble than I to "think out loud" through the issues to show me and the rest of the PB'ers how one should interact with them.

If you are of the opinion that the KJV and the received text is the only viable one and dislike textual criticism in general then may I suggest either adding to existing threads those concerns or starting a new one? I don't have time to interact on an in-depth level currently. If I have misunderstood your position in even suggesting this, please forgive me and offer a correction.

Grace and peace,


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 30, 2007)

Chris,

Thanks for your gracious response to my getting off-topic!

Steve


----------



## Chris (Jan 30, 2007)

For some reason, when I read this I thought of [esv]Isaiah 6[/esv] and [esv]John 12:41[/esv].


----------

