Κύριος (Lord) vs Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) in Jude verse 5

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ed Walsh

Puritan Board Senior
Greetings scholars,

What do you know about the ESV's decision to use 'Jesus' in verse 5 instead of 'Lord' as is in most manuscripts (as far as I know)

Jude 5 ESV
5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, (Ἰησοῦς) who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Jude 5 NASB and most translations.
5 Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, (Κύριος) after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
One of the tenets of modern textual criticism is that the "difficult" reading gets preference (where there is still good manuscript evidence, of course). In the case of Jude 5, "Jesus" is a very difficult reading.

A "difficult" reading is a reading that might produce some cognitive dissonance in the reader, not because anything it says is false, but because of the difficulty of the matter. In this case, it’s hard to see initially how Jesus is the one who judged those in the OT. Therefore, the reasoning is that it is more likely that a scribe in the transmission of this text changed "Jesus" to "Lord" than the other way around.
 

Ed Walsh

Puritan Board Senior
A "difficult" reading is a reading that might produce some cognitive dissonance in the reader, not because anything it says is false, but because of the difficulty of the matter. In this case, it’s hard to see initially how Jesus is the one who judged those in the OT. Therefore, the reasoning is that it is more likely that a scribe in the transmission of this text changed "Jesus" to "Lord" than the other way around.

That makes sense. But for me, I have always thought that the preincarnate Son of God was the active agent on the spot throughout Israel's deliverance and wanderings.

1 Corinthians 10:4 (NASB) [see verse in context]
and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them;
and the rock was Christ.
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
Here is Metzger’s opinion from his textual commentary.

Despite the weighty attestation supporting Ἰησοῦς (A B 33 81 322 323 424c 665 1241 1739 1881 2298 2344 vg cop, bo eth Origen Cyril Jerome Bede; ὁ Ἰησοῦς 88 915), a majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility, and explained its origin in terms of transcriptional oversight (ΚΧ being taken for ΙΧ). It was also observed that nowhere else does the author employ Ἰησοῦς alone, but always Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. The unique collocation θεὸς Χριστός read by P72 (did the scribe intend to write θεοῦ χριστός, “God’s anointed one”?) is probably a scribal blunder; otherwise one would expect that Χριστός would be represented also in other witnesses. The great majority of witnesses read ὁ before κύριος, but on the strength of its absence from א Ψ and the tendency of scribes to add the article, it was thought best to enclose ὁ within square brackets. (Metzger 723)
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
I have always thought that the preincarnate Son of God was the active agent on the spot throughout Israel's deliverance and wanderings.

I completely agree. The difficulty, though, is that the variant says "Jesus," not "the Son." While the Son is eternally pre-existent and was fully active, perhaps visibly, in the acts of the Old Testament, Jesus had a birth. That is what makes the reading difficult.

By the way, I am not sure what I think about this variant.
 

Phil D.

Puritan Board Junior
The always insightful NET notes:

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.

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 (the NA has “the Lord” instead of “Jesus”). However, not only does this reading enjoy the strongest support from a variety of early witnesses (e.g., A B 33 81 88 322 424 665 915 1241 (1735: “the Lord Jesus”) 1739 1881 2298 2344 vg co eth Or Cyr Hier Bede), 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 P has the intriguing reading θεὸς Χριστός [theos Christos, “God Christ”] for ᾿Ιησοῦς). 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. The NA text now also reads Ιησοῦς. For defense of this reading, see Philipp Bartholomä, “Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt: A Re-examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5, ” NovT 50 (2008): 143-58.​
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Another angle is that saying "Jesus" specifically identifies the acting agent as the pre-Incarnate Christ. This fits in rather well with Jewish Two Powers theology.
 

Phil D.

Puritan Board Junior
a majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility
As the NET statement notes, this was true of NA27, while NA28 concluded that both forms have relatively equal standing.

NA27
Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ἅπαξ / ὑμᾶς πάντα, ὅτι [ὁ] Κύριος [ἅπαξ] λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν,

NA28
Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας {ὑμᾶς} ἅπαξ πάντα, ὅτι Κύριος / Ἰησοῦς λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν,
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
As the NET statement notes, this was true of NA27, while NA28 concluded that both forms have relatively equal standing.

NA27
Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ἅπαξ / ὑμᾶς πάντα, ὅτι [ὁ] Κύριος [ἅπαξ] λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν,

NA28
Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας {ὑμᾶς} ἅπαξ πάντα, ὅτι Κύριος / Ἰησοῦς λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν,

Right, but I don’t think the evidence changed any.
 

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
As has been noted, "Jesus" has very strong textual support. Also, "Jesus" has the advantage of making "the Lord" more specific.
 

Ed Walsh

Puritan Board Senior
Thanks to all for your answers so far. As I said near the beginning, I don't think the agency of the preincarnate Son stands of falls on this verse. I have for some time believed that it was the preincarnate Jesus who interacted with the Children of Israel.
 

joebonni63

Puritan Board Freshman
I read NA27 and still have a copy its quite good however with NA28 it would seem to give both options Jesus or Lord so why not something like "the Lord Jesus" so on and so forth. Jesus or Lord are the same people or name so what its not a big deal. Such as in Malachi 4:2 Jesus is the Sun of Righteousness although there is not a translation problem just showing that Jesus goes by many names and its not really a problem
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top