A switch function solution
A special case
The previous "Valuable: A Mystery" page introduced the deistic article used before many nouns to indicate a relationship to deity. If you have not yet read that explanation of the deistic article and the switch function, you will not understand the information on this and many other pages. You can read the explanation of their uses there and then come back here by the link "A Switch Function Solution" at the bottom of that page.
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
Here is the controversial NA28/SBL2010/CBGM version of Jude 5b [bracketed English translation added]:
...ὅτι Ἰησοῦς [Jesus] λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν,
...ὅτι Ἰησοῦς [Jesus] λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν,
In every NA27 and earlier critical text-based English New Testament, Jude 5b is translated, with minor variations, something like, "... that [the] Lord, saving people out of Egypt's land, next destroyed those not believing." According to NT Greek's deistic functions of the article found by using the N2LR translation method, "Lord" without the article, as probable in this case, is the deistic form commonly used for "YHWH".
YHWH, the God of Moses, is the subject of Jude 5b, not Jesus.
However, now, in the newer NA28-based English of the eminently readable ESV (English Standard Version) as well as in the online NET Bible and others, Jude 5b reads, " ...that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe." An inline reference in the ESV tries to imply that "Christ" in 1 Cor 10:4,9 is the same person as "Lord" in Jude 5. In Jude 5 the words 'kurios' (Lord) and 'Iesous' (Jesus) both have textual evidence support, but it is a stretch for many longtime bible students to even consider this change. Here is how the attempt is made to get around these difficulties --
_________________________________
The NET2 note for this verse says: "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. 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 of 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 Or), 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). In addition to the evidence supplied in NA for this reading, note also {88 322 323 424 665 915 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."
___________________________________
"A variety of early witnesses" as listed above does not mean the earliest witnesses. To claim that the "Jesus" reading is "wholly appropriate" is wholly inappropriate. The above arguments seem weak and circumstantial. However, they may hold up as long as ignorance prevails concerning the Greek deistic article.
Although some may be tempted to use "Jesus" in this verse as strong evidence for His deity, there is enough of that in an accurate translation without having to rely on an interpretation based on as much conflicting textual evidence as this verse has. A majority on the United Bible Societies Textual Committee explained the "Jesus" reading as a visual error in copying since there is only a one letter difference between the Greek abbreviations [nomina sacra] for "Jesus" and "Lord".
Aside from those facts, common sense and good theology should tell us that Jesus was never called Jesus before He was born. The Angel said to His mother, "You will call His name Jesus...", and not, "His name is Jesus"! The translator's temptation, to both see Jesus working as deity in the Old Testament under His human name, and to believe the possibility of having solved a problematic verse, along with ignorance of the deistic switch function, are sufficient reason to explain this aberration.
I can hear the rebuttals already. "But the Son of God has always existed!" "He was in the beginning with God!" "He IS God!" That's all true, but He was never called "Jesus" before He was born. If we let this go unchallenged, and believe Jesus, the human being, was around during the Exodus, then not only does it give ammunition to the atheists, but it also makes problematic Mary's witness, the Incarnation, and Christmas. An atheistic victory indeed!
The Scripture says Jesus was birthed by a virgin. He was the Promised One. How desperately He was awaited! He came, He saw, He conquered, He died, He rose. He said He had not come to condemn the world but to save it! So how, in God's Name, could He have destroyed the Hebrews not trusting? The SBL version would have us believe that Jesus destroyed the unbelieving Hebrews, but this is what Jesus could have done only if He was not fully human. Docetism is an ancient heresy asserting that Jesus lacked full humanity.
In New Testament Philology: Essays in Honor of David Alan Black (2018), a recent collection of essays gathered by Melton Bennet Winstead, in Chapter 9 - "Disarming Significant Textual Issues in Jude", Herbert W. Bateman, Professor of New Testament, gives a good overview and a number of excellent reasons for his conclusion. Here is Prof. Bateman's concluding paragraph:
"The textual variant in this verse relates to the subject, o kurios ("the Lord"). Some manuscripts read Iesous ("Jesus") while others use theos ("God"). The Committee of the Greek New Testament clearly struggled to come to a concensus on the matter given their verdict to class this variant as category D (unresolved).(35) According to Wallace, the reason scribes inserted kurios, instead of Iesous, into v. 5 was because they were uncomfortable with the concept of Jesus being physically active and present before his recorded birth. The Iesous reading, however, has strong support from early witnesses (e.g. manuscripts A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881 2344 pc vg co Or1739mg), and is used by the new Nestle-Aland (NA28) NT text. This more difficult reading was previously argued for by Bartholoma, who studied this variant in detail and concluded that Iesous was preferred.(36) However, Wasserman, who has compiled the most exhaustive investigation of the epistle, favours the reading found in NA27. He argues that at no other point in the New Testament is Jesus mentioned in any acts prior to his birth under the name Iesous. Frey also views kurios as the original subject, but whether it was originally preceded by the article is more difficult to determine.(37) Furthermore, "o kurios" has a significant place in the overall cohesiveness of the epistle (as demonstrated in [section]4.3.1.2 and [section]6.3.a)."
What is Prof. Bateman's conclusion? He ends by stating, "While it is possible that either of these readings could be original, I follow Wasserman and remain with NA27 on this variant."
Thank you Wasserman and Prof. Bateman!
A possible solution might hinge on whether the article was original or inserted. I think what might have happened is that later-than-the-3rd or 4th-century Christian scriptoria, in process of losing the knowledge of the Hebraic deistic article as a determinant when looking at nomina sacra [link is to Wikipedia nomina sacra information ], as probable in the case here, were tempted to make sense of the lack of an original article by inserting one, not recognizing that the lack of an article before either theos (God) or kurios (Lord) was a Hebraic deistic switch form denoting "YHWH".
__________________________________________
Now, here is another reason to "remain with NA27 on this variant." Two of the oldest existing NT texts, including the very earliest fourth century Sinaiticus, first discovered and published by Tischendorf, have "Lord" without the article. These earliest Greek NT texts resulted in the NA27-based translations of Jude 5, either having no article or having it as questionable, i.e. in brackets before NT2962 kurios - "Lord". This means there is a high probability that Jude 5 originally contained "Lord" with no article, especially since articles have usually been added by scribes for "clarity", not removed.
As the previous page, Valuable: A Mystery explains, the word 'Lord' without an article is ruled by the Hebraic switch function, so that the TENT version of Jude 5b, considering both internal and external evidence such as the questionable article, reads: "...that YHWH, [kurios - Lord / no article - as switch function] saving a people out of Egypt's land, He next destroyed the ones not trusting."
The uses of the Hebraic Greek deistic article and switch function described in the Valuable: A Mystery and A Switch Function Solution pages illuminate many verses in the New Testament, and they do it in a consistent and rule-based way. To see more on how the deistic switch function can restore many verses implying the sacred name of YHWH, click the Trinity of YHWH button below.
Then He said to them, "These [are] My words which I spoke out to you, still being with you, that it is necessary for all things to be fulfilled, all the things [from-YHWH] having been written about Me in the Law [of-YHWH] from Moses, and from the prophets [of-YHWH] and from Psalms. Then He opened up their understanding to put all together the Writings [from-YHWH] --Luke 24:44-45