stephan huller

though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Jesus delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

This is the accepted reading not "the Lord" (as the NIV). Last I checked the Galilean rabbi wasnt alive at the time of Moses ...

Logical

Well, for those who believe Jesus is God, then Jesus did save the Jews from slavery in Egypt.

Grog

Could you explain this?

I read kurios everywhere:

ΙΟΥΔΑ 1:5 Greek NT: Westcott/Hort with Diacritics
Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι κύριος λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν,

ΙΟΥΔΑ 1:5 Greek NT: Greek Orthodox Church
Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ τοῦτο, ὅτι ὁ Κύριος λαὸν ἐκ τῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας, τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν,

ΙΟΥΔΑ 1:5 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Diacritics
ὑπομιμνήσκω δέ ὑμεῖς βούλομαι εἴδω ἅπαξ πᾶς ὅτι κύριος λαός ἐκ γῆ Αἴγυπτος σώζω ὁ δεύτερος ὁ μή πιστεύω ἀπόλλυμι

ΙΟΥΔΑ 1:5 Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550, with accents)
Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι εἰδότας ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ τοῦτο, ὅτι ὁ κύριος λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν

ΙΟΥΔΑ 1:5 Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)
υπομνησαι δε υμας βουλομαι ειδοτας υμας απαξ τουτο οτι ο κυριος λαον εκ γης αιγυπτου σωσας το δευτερον τους μη πιστευσαντας απωλεσεν

ΙΟΥΔΑ 1:5 Greek NT: Textus Receptus (1894)
υπομνησαι δε υμας βουλομαι ειδοτας υμας απαξ τουτο οτι ο κυριος λαον εκ γης αιγυπτου σωσας το δευτερον τους μη πιστευσαντας απωλεσεν

Source: biblos.com lexicon

stephan huller

I happened to be at the library today and thought I have saved this article Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? A Re-examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5
Author: Bartholomä, Philipp F.http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00002/art00003

In Jude 5, the manuscript evidence yields three different subjects [(1) κυριoς, (2) 'Iησoυς, (3) θεoς]. The major textual editions, but also the vast majority of English translations, prefer the κυριoς-reading as original. The 'Iησoυς-reading, although acknowledged by many as lectio difficilior, has generally been regarded as too hard. Yet, in light of the textual evidence studied from the standpoint of reasoned eclecticism, the traditional preference of the κυριoς-reading appears to be questionable. An examination of both external and internal evidence suggests that 'Iησoυς should be seriously considered as the original reading in Jude 5. This would argue for the existence of a high Christology (including Christ's pre-existence) within the Epistle of Jude.

Apparently I did not save it. Nevertheless the author says that the Jesus reading is accepted in the most recent critical examinations as the more original this in spite of Wassermann's attempt to argue the other way around. The author agrees that it is the original reading.

thief of fire

What makes the most sense here IMO is that later Christians began to see Jesus as God, and so changed it to Jesus. Looking at the rest of the new testamant we dont see any clear indication that Jesus is God.
Jude wouldn't be the only place we see this sort of editing. Othere editors changed kurios to theos to avoid the confusion that was taking place I would propose.

stephan huller

I'm sorry I don't like to make enemies - but WTF? Have you read the article? No. Did you have any an epiphany or a message directly from God? Unlikely as you have that 'A' beside your name. Why am I having a discussion with someone who knows nothing about the subject matter and didn't even bother to read the article or present some familiarity with the textual evidence. There is a solid case for the Jesus reading. It goes back to Origen and Didymus. Do you think a reputable journal would just publish this article if it contained arguments like you are developing? This forum has become unbearable. Again, please explain to me WTF you know and why I should care?

This whole forum has taken on an informality recently with people just shooting their mouth off with nothing to back it up and no sign they have even the slightest grasp of the issues at hand. I guess it's time to go to sleep.

thief of fire

But you have made some Not here but in other places.
I can only imagine it's a sad relection on you.
Why not leave if that is the case?
Probably. You seem to be very sensitive to me disagreeing with you

stephan huller

I made enemies with a circle associated with Maurice Casey because I published one of his emails at my blog and then Stephanie Fisher started telling me to take it down and I didn't know who she was and why she was calling me and so I asked her why she was calling me and then she told me that she lived with Casey and I didn't know they were living together, and then I miss understood what they meant by living together and so on and so on.

I'm sensitive to you disagreeing with me because I have finally realized that with all the effort I have put into understanding the Bible I should just have shot my mouth off when I didn't know what I was talking about. I'm jealous of your pride in being an ignoramus.

thief of fire

Have you ever seen Vicky Pollard?

Said like a true scholar. I wont report you for the insult as I like the entertainmemt

stephan huller

So let's get back to the OP - why do you think the one reading is more original than the other?