A bias-free Jude 25 discussion

Bias Free? There is no such condition. We all have a bias, a lifelong set of paradigms which we use to sort through a lot of mostly man-made doctrine. God wrote only one Bible, probably not in English. He said what He meant and meant what He said. Re: Moses missed the promised land(not heaven) for not paying close attention to God.

Now what?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

A bias - free Baptist Board discussion??

A bias - free BB discussion on any subject??

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]

Let me repeat that!

[/FONT][FONT=verdana,sans-serif]

Now that's the best laugh I've had in three days!

Ed
[/FONT]

 

I favor the NIV's rendering. It has solid textual support.

Best of luck with this discussion. :thumbs:

 

There are two different Greek base texts that make these versions.

μόνῳ θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν
διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν
δόξα μεγαλωσύνη κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία
πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος
καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας,
ἀμήν.
Jude 25 UBS4

English translation as found in the New American Standard Bible:

to the only God our Savior,
through Jesus Christ our Lord,
be glory, majesty, dominion and authority,
before all time
and now and forever.
Amen.
Jude 25 NASB95


μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν,
δόξα καὶ μεγαλωσύνη,
κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία,
καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας.
Ἀμήν.
Jude 25 Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Greek Text (2005)

English Translation as found in the Authorized Version:

to the only wise God our Saviour,
be glory and majesty, dominion and power,
both now and ever.
Amen.
Jude 25 AV 1873

Parallel verses:

to God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
AV 1873 Romans 16:27

Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God,
be honour and glory
for ever and ever.
Amen.
1 Timothy 1:17 AV 1873

Comment:
One could be original.
One could be earlier.
One could more prevalent or more common.
One could more concise.

Both could be correct!

Both are acceptable doctrinally, “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Ti 3:16).

I have my preference, my opinion, my choice but I have more than enough trouble transforming myself to the image of our Savior.
God help us all if he holds us accountable for the Greek text we use.

Rob

 

Well said, but -

(I guess I do have to get serious, this time around)

I'm still not sure this answers all the OP, as to the actual best textual reading.

According to Hodges/Farstad, in the MT, at least, there seem to still be some question as to all the actual text, even with the MT. I, unfortunately, do not have the necessary ability to reproduce all the actual variants from my hard copy, but would likewise suggest, with Deacon, that the best rendering might be some combination of what Deacon has written from the two 'major' texts above, and considering that the only seemingly unquestionable Greek are these words.

Hence I personally 'render' this [remember, this is only the ESV (EdSutton version) :laugh:] in this manner.

FTR, this rendering is fairly similar to that found in the actual ESV.

Ed

 

My Hodges/Farstad (only the first edition, sorry) has exactly what both Robinson/Pierpont editions and the TR have. On the other hand, Westcott/Hort is exactly like my UBS 3. (Sorry, I'm too poor to buy UBS4.)

In other words, this is a straight choice between the Alexandrian text type and the Byz/Maj text type. Your choice will depend on your presuppositions concerning text type. The Alexandrian priority types will choose the UBS/Nestle, the eclectic types will normally go along, but we Byz/Maj folk of course will keep the correct reading of "Only wise God," etc. :thumbs:

 

Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont editions read the same, the only textual differences are the capitalization of some letters.

The earliest witness for Jude's epistle is found in Papyrus 72 (P. Bodmer VII and VIII) which is dated to ~ca. 300.

μονω θω ημων αυτω δο
ξα κρατος τιμη δια ιηυ χρυ του
κυω ημων αυτω δοξα και με
γαλοσυνη και νυν και εις τους
παντας εωνας αμην
ϊουδα επειστολη
Jude 25 P72

Note: 1. the underlined text (nomina sacra) has a line over the letters in the original papyrus.
I couldn’t reproduce them properly here and opted to underline them instead.
2. The text is reproduced as written in the papyrus, line for line.
3. The text bolded relates to the note below.

One can imagine that the omission of the phrase, δια ιηυ χρυ του κυω ημων αυτω [through Jesus Christ our Lord] occured as a sight err, picking up again at δοξα και με... the letters being the same in the Greek text.

Rob

 

Ya'll are going to make me do it, aren't you?

Have to laborously attempt to construct the variants as listed in the siglum of the MT (Hodges/Farstad, 2nd Edition). [Sigh!]

I do understand the 'printed text'; I was referring to the footnoted 'varaints', you know the kind that are found in the - Oops! ... robycop3 didn't want any "pro or 'anti' "something or other Only" material, so I will not mention anymore English versions.

The questions against some 'straight' text types (which incidentally, is a misnomer, IMO, whether the text is consdiered as 'pure' or 'impure') concerns these phrases (and I will use the "@" to 'stand for' Aleph and m to stand for the large German 'M', employed by H/F).

1.) "σοφῷ" apparently omitted by p72, @, B, A, & C, while found in the overwhelming majority (m) of 'Byzantine' texts.

2.) " διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν " contained in B, A, & C, with one variant of this also found in @* ('corrected' to read in what manner????), and with another variant in p72, but is not found in a less overwhelming number of the MT (M), as some strands of the MT apparently diverge here, hence, leading one to ask the question of what is found in these, I would presume. Hence this being either an 'omission' or an 'addition' would seem to be less certain, than 1.) above, as to the exact reading.

3.) " δόξα μεγαλωσύνη" is found in the 'CT, except that p72, apparently here, aligns with m, reading " δόξα καὶ μεγαλωσύνη". The reading with the "καὶ" is apparently even more pronounced, ergo, than in 1.), above. Hmmm!

4.) " πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος" is found in the CT, vs. the M reading, which does not have this, and is apparently collaborated with the 'lining' of p72 here, yet still some MT diverge, here. Why??

I admit I do not have any clue, as to the "why" of any of the variants, just that it is apparently there.

I have not seen the 400+ manuscripts that Hodges and Farstd and their associates used, any more than I've seen those of the UBS2, with their multiple associates. Nor Stephanus; nor Westcort/Hort.

I have to take their word for this, in each instance. Were this not trustworthy, in any case, I would guess that there would be multiple web-sites showing the deception. I see none, so I assume there was, in fact, no deception. But I am also not close to being willing to make any blanket statement as to which I believe to be, or should be the exact wording of the text, here, unlike in some other instances.

As Deacon wrote above, in post #5 -

With this I fully agree.

Gotta' run.

Ed

 

Wow, lots of work. Thanks, Ed! :thumbs:

I'm going to stick with my stated position. I don't think it is a difficult passage. How one chooses will just depend on one's presuppostions about textual criticism.

 

John of Japan is correct. I favor the quality of Byzantine readings in general, and therefore usually favor the Byzantine Text-type.

The addition/omission of "wise" (SOFW) is also a problem in 1 Ti 1:17, where the Byzantines have the word and the Alexandrians don't. Accidental omission of single words is a common trait of our earliest MSS, but the fact that this error occurs twice out of three occurrences (the other is R 16:27) argues for intentional omission/addition. Some might call the addition an "orthodox corruption," yet just the opposite can be argued, that the omission is in fact a vestige of heretical attempts, such as that of the gnostics, to influence Scripture. But their attempts, as many and often as they were according to early church fathers, could not overcome the entire MS tradition, contra the views of those like Bart Ehrman.

Omission is a general trait of Alexandrian MSS, just as, for the sake of example, the earliest MS containing this passage also omits "Savior" (SWTHRI) in Jd 25, once again showing the fallacy that the MS closest to the autograph is also somehow more original than later MSS.

The addition/omission of "through Jesus Christ our Lord" and "before all time" are inherently connected to the addition/omission of "wise" in the same verse. Deacon mentioned that the unusual shorter Byzantine reading (without "through Jesus Christ our Lord") may have been omitted accidentally by scribal jump from the D of DIA (through) to the D of DOXA (glory). Such a transcriptional error is possible but unlikely. The three main variants taken en masse show marks of editorial activity, either by the Byzantines or the Alexandrians: the same basic Alexandrian MSS agree on omitting "wise" but adding "through Jesus Christ our Lord" and "before all time"; while the same basic Byzantine MSS agree in adding "wise" but omitting the other two phrases.

Reasons for the Alexandrian edition adding the exclusively Pauline words "through Jesus Christ our Lord" may be assimilation to Ro 5:21 and 7:25, or assimilation to a lesser degree also to Ro 1:8, 16:27; Ga 1:1; Eph 1:5; Php 1:11; Tit 3:6; Heb 13:21. Reasons for adding "before all time" may have to do with assimilating to the trifold description of time such as appears on the next page of my GNT at Rev 1:4 and 1:8.

 

Why would the Gnostics want deny that God was wise?
It seems to me that this would play into their hand.

Rob

 

Gnosticism holds that there are many emanations or "Aeons"of "God." This concept could also be applied to one of the variants in Jd 25, i.e., "before all time," or, in gnostic terms, before the "Aeons" or emanations of God. One of the aeons important for this discussion include the "Before the Beginning" God (PROARCH), a concept which is strikingly close to the concept of "before all Aeons" or "before all time" as represented in the Alexandrians. It may be that the Alexandrians did the best they could with the text they inherited, and added some anti-gnostic material along the way (i.e., the adding of the phrase "before all the aeons," e.g.). Anyway, the concept of multiple divine beings, even people being able to attain divinity, argues for a possible motive for omitting "wise" in the phrase, "only wise God." I'm not arguing that the Alexandrians omitted it on purpose, but that it had possibly been omitted from the best texts they had available to them.

 

On second thought, I think Deacon's observation may make more sense in the explanation of all three major variants as anti-gnostic corruptions.

(1) The reading "wise" was omitted by the Alexandrian edition to combat some gnostic citing of the verse.

(2) The reading "through Jesus Christ our Lord" was added also as an anti-gnostic attempt to add Jesus to the equation and eliminate the gnostic use of the verse.

(3) The reading "before all aeons" was yet another anti-gnostic addition and play on words by the Alexandrian edition in order to emphasize that God was before all time, including all the so-called aeons of the gnostic heresy.

In this way the explanation of the origin of all three variants is explained and connected to a single editor and single event, explaining why the minority part of the MS tradition supports not just one of the major readings but all of them; they all three were introduced at one and the same time.

 

Re: God only wise

On the other hand, Romans 16:27; 1 Timothy 1:17 and Jude 25 make excellent benedictions.
It wouldn’t be surprising to find some unintentional harmonization among hand written documents.

It’s unfortunate that the earliest witnesses to the Byzantine text line are usually 9th century or later.

Rob

 

Your claim is not very accurate. Alexandrinus is a member of the Byzantine text-type in the gospels and is within 100 years of both Aleph and B, i.e., fifth century as opposed to fourth.

All one has to do is see how many times even the critical editors reject the earliest MS of Jude (p72) because they think that it, in many places, even though earliest, is not the best. Many times the pro-Alexandrian camp simply counts witnesses instead of weighing them: whichever reading has the most "Alexandrian" MSS in support, regardless of the character of those MSS, must be correct. It almost seems that they utilize one of the notes of truth that pro-Byzantine scholars hold dear, that number really does matter.

 

Hummmm, let me clarify myself a bit...
It’s unfortunate that the earliest witnesses [of this passage in Jude] in the Byzantine text line are usually 9th century or later.

While Codex Alexandrinus usually supports Byzantine readings in the gospels, it doesn't in Jude’s epistle [LINK].

Alexandrinus is written in uncial script which is rather difficult for me to decipher
If you look closely you can see the light over-lines of the Nomina Sacra in the fourth and fifth lines from the end.

I've never studied Jude, (and probably won't for quite some time).
When I do I'll have to find a copy of Tommy Wasserman's book,
The Epistle of Jude, Its text and transmission

Rob

 

Deacon: "The earliest witnesses [of this passage in Jude] in the Byzantine text line are usually 9th century or later."

Seeing how, of the more than 500 MSS available for Jude, only 5 of them (other than minute fragments) are from before the 9th century, your statement doesn't say much.

So if we take the 15 earliest MSS of Jude verse 25 out of some 500 MSS or so, the majority of the earliest MSS would cause us to accept the reading "wise," and reject the Alexandrian interpolations "through Jesus Christ our Lord" and "before all time."

Simple as spit.

 

So we both end up displaying our biases in a thread labeled "A bias-free discussion" :tonofbricks:

As it stands today, it appears that God has blessed us with two different renditions of this verse,
both are accurate and acceptable,
both are God-honoring and faithful,
both are profitable and worthy of study.

Rob

 

The same might be said of the Bible in comparison with Pilgrim's Progress.

The fact remains that in Jude 25 there are two distinct streams in the MS tradition:
one is an accurate representation of the inspired Word, one is not,
one is God-breathed and faithful, the other is not,
while both are profitable and worthy of study, only one is actually God's inspired Word, the other, scribal redaction only.