Jude 25 comparisons

The NKJV has:

To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen. ​

The NIV seems for some reason to have followed the Latin Vulgate, which has:

soli Deo salvatori nostro per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum gloria magnificentia imperium et potestas ante omne saeculum et nunc et in omnia saecula amen​

If I remember my schoolboy Latin, "per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum" means "through (or by) Jesus Christ our Lord" and "ante omne saeculum" is "before all ages". The Latin for "wise" is (I think) sapientia, and that isn't in the Vulgate of Jude 25.

The NIV at this point looks like an English translation of the Vulgate.

 

These are variants between the Textus Receptus and the CT. The eclectic Greek texts have several more words than the TRs, but sophos (Strong's #4680) is not among them.

 

There’s a lot going on in the text of the letter of Jude.
It has quite a complicated textual history.
It’s not for amateurs like me!

The earliest witnesses to the text is P72 (ca. 300) which differs significantly from both the TR and the Eclectic text.

μονω θω (only God) ημων αυτω δο
ξα κρατος τιμη δια ιηυ χρυ (by Jesus Christ) του
κυ <ω> ημων αυτω δοξα (glory) και με
γαλοσυνη και νυν και εις τους
παντας εωνας αμην
ϊουδα επειστολη
Jude 25, P72

The addition of the word “wise” in the Majority text can be observed by following the dates of the witnesses [dates are in parentheses].

μoνω] (ONLY) p72 (ca. 300) copsa(ms) (III/IV) copbo (III/IV) ‭א (IV) B(IV) vg ([Vulgate mentioned above] - IV) A (V) C (V) arm geo syr[ph] syrh Ψ (VIII/IX) 33 (IX) it[ar] 1739 (X) 81 (1044) 323 436 1243 2298 2344 it[t] l596 1241 1505 1611 1292 1852 1067 1409 1881 322

μoνω σοφω] (ONLY WISE) (see Romans 16:27) K (IX) L (VIII) P (IX) Lect slav (IX) 945 (XI) 1175 (XI) 1846 (XI) 1735 (IX/XII) 1844 (XV) ς

See LaParola [LINK]

Rob

 

That is the theory. And so the Alexandrian readings in Jude 25 that are more complete and polished (than the Byzantine readings) demonstrate that they are actually later than the Byzantine readings. These kinds of examples are interesting and demonstrate the age-old text-critical adage that age of the text, not age of the manuscript, is the most important.

The presence of 'only wise God' (as opposed to just 'only God') is what originally drew Alexandrian editors to harmonize the passage to Ro 16:27, which in turn included adding the words 'through Jesus Christ our Lord' to the original text of Jude, which did not include those words to begin with. It also seemed strange to early editors/copyists to ascribe the term 'Savior' to God alone and not also Jesus Christ, and perhaps why some MSS, including our earliest one, P72, omit 'Savior' altogether. The absence of 'wise' (SOFW) in the Alexandrians may be due to h.t. error, due to the similar endings of the first three words of the verse, i.e., MONW SOFW QW.

Another Alexandrian expansion in Jude 25 is reflected in the words 'before all time' (PRO PANTOS TOU AIWNOS) that were added before the original text's 'both now and for all time'. This sounds nice and eloquent (cf. John's similar description just four verses later in the GNT, Rev. 1:4) and even more balanced, which is exactly why some editor thought he could improve upon the original text by adding these words to it. If the extra words were original (in either this case or that above), there is no reason to leave them out. Truth is, the words here (without the extra words) are fine, and quite exegetically perfect (cf. 2 Pe 3:18).

Jude 25 remains a nice test case as to the later text of the earlier MSS.