Coming back to the point of the thread, my textual position usually follows a Sturzian style to make final textual decisions. And so it does seem "lord" is the best attested geographically. Internal evidence aside, it seems "Lord" is best. Since internal evidence is usually self contradictory, I try to avoid it for final decision making. I think it is corroborative at best.
To complicate this more, if we didn't put this into a test-tube but read these readings amongst a larger portion of text, than the readings get very complicated. Jude has many variants. I wonder if the NA is representing a larger reading that never existed in any text. I'll have to investigate further.
Hi Tim,
You make many great points. I can add just a little as I have Tommy Wasserman's
The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission in front of me. You ask whether a short stretch of text containing the variant in question appears in any known witness to the NT text. I can say that no witness has the 6-word sequence in NA27: υμας παντα οτι ο κυριος απαξ. There is a single witness (ℵ/01) that has that sequence without the definite article (ο), though. The interesting thing is that the reconstructed text that Wasserman proposes also has no ms in support: υμας απαξ παντα οτι κυριος.
NA28 has: υμας απαξ παντα οτι ιησους, and this is supported by only one ms (B/03).
As Wasserman notes, there are four main problems with the section of text in question:
1. The presence of υμας (or ημας)
2. The location of απαξ
3. The originality of παντα (as opposed to τουτο for example)
4. The κυριος/Ιησους variation (among others)
First, I have no problem with the presence of υμας.
Second, I think the location of απαξ within the relative clause correlates nicely with το δευτερον and thus I can see no reason why this sequence, if original, would have been rejected by most scribes in favor of the more difficult sequence that has it before the relative clause. In other words, the Byz reading that has απαξ before the relative is more difficult due to the presence of το δευτερον later in the relative clause. The difficulty of this lack of correlation caused some to conform the text into a more sensible construction, i.e., the Lord first did this, second did that. But as far as
this reading is concerned, the ESV rendering is perfectly sensible from the Greek (i.e.,
you once fully knew, . . .
[Jesus/the Lord] afterward destroyed . . .
Third, the presence of τουτο (Byz and others) against the παντα is far more difficult, also presenting a reason for its alteration by a few scribes. Wasserman writes:
Furthermore, the reading τουτο violates the sentence structure; the subordinate οτι-clause depends on υπομνησαι and not ειδοτας. Hence, the insertion of τουτο before οτι leaves the main clause dangling without object throughout the long sentence in vv. 5–7. . . .
A further reason for changing τουτο into παντα is the presence of similar statements even within the Catholic Epistles. Cf. 1 John 2:20, 27; also, Rom 15:14.
Fourth, the Ιησους variation would not have presented any difficulty to a 2d- or 3d-century scribe, since in the early centuries authors frequently wrote that "Jesus" was active in the OT, while the NT authors never mention this name with reference to the preexistent activity of Christ, preferring "Christ" (1 Cor 10:4) or "Lord," etc. In addition, Jude himself uses κυριος with reference to Jesus not only in v. 4 preceding, but also in vv. 17 and 21. There is more of a chance that a few scribes wished to clarify the christological significance by using "Jesus" than that
most chose to
lessen it by using κυριος, which is ambiguous and could simply refer to YHWH (the LORD).
Sincerely,
Jonathan C. Borland
