Jude 5 and Gathercole's eight arguments in favor of the reading "Jesus" as opposed to "Lord"

When we think about things that are integral to Yahweh's identity in the Old Testament one of the first things that comes to mind is, among other things, His unique role in leading the Israelites out of Egypt. Exodus 20:2 reads “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." If there is anything out there that reveals that Yahweh is the God of the Israelites it is this concept. For the unitarian, Christ being identified as the One who participated in this would be utterly devastating. If the Lord Jesus delivered Israel from the land of Egypt, unitarianism is reduced to absurdity as we know this is something only Yahweh did.

Luckily, the argumentation surrounding Jesus preforming things that only Yahweh does or has done in biblical history is found in great quantity. In this article we'll be examining, as mentioned earlier, Yahweh leading Israel out of Egypt and how Jesus is said to be the one who preforms this act. You probably know the verse I'm talking about.

Jude 1:4-5 (ESV)
4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

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.

This article is not meant to be a treatise on the text of Jude 5, as many scholars have already done this very well (see the commentaries listed at the bottom of this page) but rather to share a summary of the argumentation given by those who accept the deity of Christ.

The first main contention here with unitarians we find is the textual variant found in v5.

Older translations typically choose κύριος, ("Lord") as the best reading, so Jude was saying that the Lord preformed such actions. Even if this is the true reading, it will be shown towards the end of this article not to affect the argument being made here.

As Todd Scacewater writes, "the tides have turned". Three major english translations have recently chosen the reading Ιησοῦς, ("Jesus") (ESV; NET; NLT) as have three major critical Greek editions: Nestle Aland 28th edition (27th edition chose "Lord"), UBS 5th edition, and Tyndale House's Greek New Testament.

I am no textual scholar, but I love the NET notes on this verse.

"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.

Simon J. Gathercole gives eight arguments in favor of the reading "Jesus" as opposed to "the Lord"

"i. The textual alternatives are "Jesus." "the Lord," "God," and "Christ, God." Hardly any scholars, however, have opted for either of the latter two, since they are poorly attested. We are left with "the Lord" and "Jesus" as the serious options.

ii. The consensus is that, considered on purely external grounds, the reading "Jesus" is much more preferable. The minority report of the UBS Editorial Committee comments: "Critical principles seem to require the adoption of ᾿Ιησοῦς, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses." Osburn, the author of the most substantial treatment of the problem, uses almost identical language "the former reading has the best attestation among greek and versional witnesses and ... critical principles seem to require its adoption." In addition to this manuscript evidence, there is a marginal comment in a minuscule manuscript (1739) attributing to Origen (d. 254) the comment: "Jude says in his epistle, 'for Jesus once saved the people from Egypt, and thereafter destroyed those who did not believe'".

iii. The principal reason for rejecting the reading "Jesus" is internal, in other words, the a priori unlikelihood of the writer saying that Christ was an agent in the exodus. Matthew Black, another Editorial Committee member, comments that "there does not seem to me to be any question about the right reading on internal grounds." The problem with Black's argument, however, is that he considers the only two possibilities as "Lord" or "Joshua" (᾿Ιησοῦς). Despite the manuscript evidence, the majority of the committee (three of the five) decided that on sense grounds the reading ᾿Ιησοῦς was "difficult to the point of impossibility".

iv. A further reason offered by the Committee is that "nowhere else does the author employ ᾿Ιησοῦς alone, but always ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός ("Jesus Christ") However, this is a rather desperate argument: it is extremely hazardous to attempt to identify tendencies in nomenclature in a letter so short as Jude.

v. The final justification offered for the Committee's decision has been on the grounds of transcriptional error (the abbreviation "KC" read as "IC". In the final analysis, however, transcriptional error should not be supposed if the reading best attested can be seen to make good sense, although it of course always remains a possibility.

vi. Even when there is considerable variation in manuscripts among nomina sacra, that is to say, abbreviation of frequently occurring divine names or titles, ᾿Ιησοῦς does not usually figure in this variety. A brief examination of the apparatus to Nestle-Aland does not seem to give any indication of this, and Fossum wonders "why a copyist could feel able to substitute ᾿Ιησοῦς for Kyrios." Interestingly, Bauckham admits this, even though he takes the authentic reading to be κύριος:

"It should be noted initially that to some extent this textual situation is not unusual, since there are many places, especially in the Pauline corpus, where the text varies between two of the three words κύριος, θεός, and Χριστός, and in some cases between all three . . . What is exceptional in Jude 5 is the reading ᾿Ιησοῦς, which there seems to be no evidence of scribes deliberately substituting Χριστός or θεός elsewhere."

What this means is that "Jesus" is more likely to be original, since κύριος is more likely to be replaced by Χριστός or θεός. It is difficult to imagine why a scribe would change Χριστός to ᾿Ιησοῦς.

vii. On the other hand, there is every reason for a scribe to change ᾿Ιησοῦς to Χριστός. One can imagine both orthodox and unorthodox clarifications.
In the first case, it might seem odd to an orthodox scribe (as it does to most modern scholars) to use the name "Jesus" in connection with an action prior to the incarnation. In this case, it would make sense for a scribe to clarify that it was not Jesus in his human nature who freed the Israelites but rather Jesus in his identity as the preexistent κύριος, and, in other manuscripts, as θεός.

viii. While this is perfectly possible, an unorthodox corruption of Scripture is somewhat more attractive. The Fathers talk frequently about this kind of practice. For example, a fragment preserved in Eusebius (EH 5.28) charges the Monarchians Artemon and Theodotus with changing biblical texts to prove their own doctrine, denying the divinity of Christ and that Christ is the Logos. Osburn mentions a fragment of Origen's Stromateis (pre-232-), which talks of people tampering with the preexistence texts in his time, and a further work, The Little Labyrinth, which provides evidence of altering of such passages around 199-218 by Ascelpiodotus, Theodotus, Hermophilus, and Apollonius. We can perhaps see this at work in 1. Cor 10:9, from the textual apparatus there. Osburn concludes that in Jude 5 as well it is reasonable to suggest that this milieu was conductive to the alteration of ᾿Ιησοῦς to Χριστός or θεός. It is easy to see, then, how ᾿Ιησοῦς could give rise to the other readings which we have: it is more difficult to argue that the change would have gone the other way."

As far as I am concerned, the evidence given here by Dr. Simon Gathercole is extremely overwhelming. I love how he points out how argumentation such as arguing from tendencies in nomenclature in such a short epistle as Jude is problematic. Truly, the textual evidence is excellent.

But what's more, and as Gathercole alludes to, we don't even need the correct reading to be ᾿Ιησοῦς in order for this to still be a valid argumentation for Jude identifying Jesus as Yahweh.

As Robert Bowman and Ed Komozweski point out,

"After speaking of Jesus Christ as “our only Master and Lord,” Jude could hardly have proceeded in the very next sentence to refer to someone other
than Jesus as “the Lord.” The Lord who delivered his people out of Egypt, then, must be the Lord Jesus."

Contextually, it makes absolutely no sense for it to be referring to any other person than Jesus. Especially in light of the fact that the construction our Master and Lord, Jesus Christ in v.4 follows Granville Sharp's rule.

For further reading on Jude 5, see

Philipp Bartholomä, “Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt: A Re-examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5, ” page 143-58

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies.  "A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament"

J. Fossum, "Kyrios Jesus as the Angel of the Lord in Jude 5-7"

Richard Bauckham, "Jude And The Relatives Of Jesus In The Early Church" page 308-314

Bateman, H. W., IV. "Jude: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary" page160–161)

Bauckham, R. J.. Vol. 50: "Word Biblical Commentary : 2 Peter, Jude. Word Biblical Commentary"

Ed Komoszewski and Robert M. Bowman Jr "Putting Jesus in His Place" page 98

Green, G. L. "Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Jude and 2 Peter" page 64

‍