Textual Variants in Jude 5 and the Reading "Jesus" Versus "Lord

Jude verse 5 contains a well-known textual variant. In the King James Version we read:

"I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not." Jude 5

Many modern translations, however, read "Jesus" instead of "the Lord," for example the ESV: "that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt..." The difference arises from variation in the Greek manuscripts that underlie the translations.

The competing readings

Simplifying the evidence:

• The reading "Lord" is supported by the majority of Greek manuscripts and reflects the traditional text underlying the King James Version.
• The reading "Jesus" appears in a small number of manuscripts, especially some that are highly valued in the modern critical text tradition (for example, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus).

The modern critical text (Nestle-Aland 28) adopts "Jesus," and modern translations that follow this text usually reflect that choice. The King James Version (and translations following the traditional majority text) keeps "Lord." Thus the difference between translations is not interpretive in the first instance, but textual: which underlying Greek reading they adopt.

How the decision is made in modern textual criticism

Modern textual criticism tends to give significant weight to a small set of manuscripts considered "earlier" or "better," often from the Alexandrian tradition. When such manuscripts differ from the majority reading, critical editors will frequently prefer the minority reading, on the assumption that earlier and "more difficult" readings are more authentic.

In this case, the critical text prefers "Jesus," supported by a limited number of manuscripts, over "Lord," which is supported by a large majority. A traditional, majority-text or Textus Receptus approach instead reasons that the widely attested reading "Lord" is more reliable than a late-discovered and sparsely attested alternative.

From a standpoint that values the broad manuscript tradition and questions the reliability of the small Alexandrian set as controlling witnesses, "Lord" is the more defensible reading.

Interpreting "Lord" in Jude 5

If we accept the reading "Lord," the interpreter still faces a theological question: does "Lord" refer to the preincarnate Christ, to God the Father, or more generally to the God of Israel without specifying the person?

Scripture does portray the Son as active in Old Testament events (e.g., the rock that followed Israel, 1 Corinthians 10:4), and many have argued that appearances of the Angel of the LORD or certain manifestations of God in the Old Testament are the preincarnate Christ. Thus, even with the word "Lord," a strong case can be made that the second person of the Trinity was involved in the Exodus events.

However, the text itself, with "Lord," does not compel us to identify the referent as Jesus in an explicit, named way. It leaves the reference as "Lord," which in the biblical idiom can designate God without specifying person. This is one reason some traditional interpreters resist the minority reading "Jesus": it moves from an implicitly possible Christological reading to an explicit one, on slender textual support.

The effect of the variant on doctrine

Doctrinally, the difference between "Lord" and "Jesus" in this verse does not create or erase the doctrine that the Son was active in Old Testament redemptive history. That doctrine can be argued from broader biblical patterns. The variant does, however, illustrate how textual decisions can subtly shape the explicitness of a doctrinal claim in a given verse:

• With "Lord," one may argue that Christ is in view, but must do so by theological reasoning and cross-references.
• With "Jesus," the text directly asserts that Jesus saved Israel out of Egypt and afterward judged the unbelievers.

The concern from a traditional-text perspective is that a very small group of manuscripts is effectively rewriting the verse to state explicitly what, at most, is implied elsewhere, thus altering the clarity and focus of the passage on the basis of slim and historically opaque evidence.

A reasoned conclusion

Given:

• the overwhelming manuscript support for "Lord",
• the late and limited attestation of "Jesus",
• and the tendency within modern critical practice to favor minority readings from a restricted set of manuscripts,

it is reasonable to retain "Lord" in Jude 5 as the more trustworthy reading. One may then discuss whether Jude had specifically the Son in mind when speaking of the Lord’s saving and judging work in the Exodus. That is an interpretive question to be handled with the whole canon in view, rather than by resting weight on a thinly supported textual alteration.

Thus, the difference among translations reflects a difference in underlying Greek text, not—strictly speaking—an interpretive disagreement among translators of the same text. A careful reader should recognize the variant, favor the robustly attested "Lord," and then proceed to consider, from all of Scripture, how Christ is present and active in the Old Testament events Jude recalls.

questiontransition