sotto voce

What a talent for inversion.

It was the bloody Catholics who invented trinitarianism and crippled the thinking of billions of people; it is Protestants (some of them) who are waking up to the idea that it was Jesus who gave the Law at Sinai, who sent the prophets and 'lived' in the Temple, and created everything anyway and everyone who exists anyway. It just takes time to read the Bible!

spin

I don't understand this apparent bias. You state "superior textual support" and ignore the what the manuscripts indicate. κυριος explains all manifestations. Jesus explains only the four variants featuring the name..

stephan huller

Well unlike you I am not the expert but when I look at this reading απαξ παντα οτι Ιησους (all, that Jesus) and see that little ole A and that little ole B beside it I say 'mmm that's very good textual support. The argument about 'explaining' appeals to pre-existing biases. For instance I can 'explain' that women call me after sleeping with me with countless 'explanations' what isn't subject to debate is that under such a scenario women are sleeping with me. In the same way, A and B is pretty serious support. My ho on = ithay = yesh = jesus is just as good an explanation as 'it's supposed to be kurios' especially as Egypt is the context.

I am sorry I am busy. Probably should have waited until later to respond. At a red light. Get back later

stephan huller

Here is a good example of the heretics thinking itay was another god beside the Jewish god. In Ephrem's attack against Bardaisan it is clear that the heretic made this argument:

Bardaisan must have thought that the itay in Exodus 3:14 was a separate power (= yeshu). Ephrem demonstrates that he used the Masoretic text against the Marcionites. He is doing the same against the Bardaisan here. Nevertheless the facts still remain - despite the deceit of scholars trying to square things all neat that ehyeh is not a translation of itay or vice versa. One means becoming the other being. Yesh is the proper translation of itay. Such bullshit.

Yesh = itay. Yeshu must have been the third person of yesh in Middle Hebrew just as we say eineno turn into eno in various texts.

thief of fire

thay had a lot of great characters, but I think Dafyd was the funniest.

spin

Now how do you think this is relevant to understanding the textual form of Jude 5? Bardaisan is a relatively obscure writer in Aramaic. According to your apparatus Ephrem supplies απαξ παντα οτι κυριος. He didn't seem to think that Jesus was in the original text. You mightn't like having to explain the various forms, but what do you offer as a means of making sense of the evidence: Bardaisan is a trustworthy indicator?

thief of fire

Sotto , what we know is that early on in the christian movement there was disagreement about just who or what jesus was. Yet if this read Jesus then it would have been very easy for "orthodox" believers to point to it as an indication of who jesus was, but we never find this.
So we can conclude it wasn't there till later.
Also by later on following the christological disputes we have a reason why someone might change it from kurios to jesus.

Stephan you might like to have a go at this too. Early "orthodox" christians would have been able to just whip this out and trump their opponents. It obviously wasn't there.

sotto voce

That's just what some people like to think. Or like us to think. There was an abundance of antichrists posing as believers, then, as now. Every NT writer except James warned about them, and even James addressed incipient nominalism. This persistent warning about false teachers is the most neglected aspect of the NT (and the OT as well); but then this is only to be expected in the circumstances!

What was the purpose of Jude's letter?

'Certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a licence for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only sovereign and lord.'

Now those who followed Jesus as Christ would never suppress the opinions of anyone. The most crooked person could without let or hindrance call himself Christian. But those who were opposed to Jesus would suppress opinion, without a glimmer of compunction. So writings of the defenders of orthodoxy, in a highly inimical milieu composed of furious Judaism, the jealous 'silversmith' faction and the police state of Rome, didn't have much chance of survival. What is remarkable about the New Testament is that it exists at all. The little letter from Jude in particular. It must have been much cherished and valued.

thief of fire

Thank god things have changed and and even televangelists have the correct christology

Solo

'We all' would be you and buddies living in the Yellow Submarine, I suppose.

Jiri.