sotto voce

Trinitarians are such bad losers.

spin

Tell me about it.

sotto voce

Comedian.

stephan huller

First let's start with the context of Jude - the agape ritual. The author clearly acknowledges that the love union should be with the god Jesus rather than physical union with other men. Right so far? The question is whether a generic reference to 'the Lord' or 'Jesus' is more appropriate for the figure that is weaved throughout the content of this single chapter epistle. I think the author begins with 'Jesus Christ' and has a divine Jesus in mind throughout. This is why the letter is cited in the Letter to Theodore. The question (or juxtaposition) in either case is union with divine Jesus or physical union with men (homosexuality). The Letter to Jude doesn't make sense with a generic 'Lord' concept. It was Jesus in the burning bush and not surprisingly the being there directs Moses and Aaron to become 'brothers' in the material which follows.

The Samaritan interpretation of this material is that Moses and Aaron were joined as brothers by the god of the burning bush. Here is the short poem of Aaron b. Maner[13Th century] based on Marqe (his references cited in another thread here in FDBD) which is sang only in the Shabbath of Zimmut of Pessach (translated by my friend Benny Tsedaka):

Listen to my words,
Beautiful and heavy words,
Coming from full heart,
And the Almighty supports it,
My words will inform you,
what is quickly done,
Between the Man that testify,
The Great Prophet,
When Aaron went out to meet him,
With happiness and greatness,
He raised his eyes from far,
Saw an honored light,
Hid the light of the sun,
Like a flame of fire,
He said: Is it an Angel?
Or Prophet? or a king? or a obedience?
And he was wondering in his heart,
Could not stand still.
And the Angel of God said to him
With an honorable way,
Aaron, He is you brother Moses,
That promoted and honored,
Go forward and greet him,
And kiss his hand.
Aaron went towards Moses
And bowed down before him,
Saying to him, Hello my brother Moses,
The honorable man,
Hello the messenger of the Almighty
The Slave of the Almighty,
Hello the Man of the Almighty,
That his hand was raised,
I never expected to see your face,
And be hold the Almighty let us meet,
Today is between you and me,
In happiness and kindness,
Today the Will
Established in it,
The meeting of Aaron and his brother,
The meeting of kind with kind
The meeting of the moon and sun,
Meeting of teacher with teacher.
There Aaron prayed,
And honored and praised,
And said: The World Creator,
Should be bowed to the Almighty.
And the Angels Commented and said:
The Almighty is King and the world witness.

The implications are clearly to me at least that Moses didn't know he had a brother before this - neither do we. The text does mention Moses's sister (Ex 2.7) but nothing about a brother.

The reason this relevance is that the Christian love ritual which established brothers through adoption is clearly rooted in this same material from Exodus chapter 3. In the Greek text (and the indirect reflection of various texts of John 8:58) the Lord says he is yesh (= Jesus) and then establishes two men as brothers. The author of Jude is reflecting the same ideas but specifically with Jesus identified as Lord.

sotto voce

Another comedian.

Any non-Catholics here?

Spanky

Sorry I do not quite follow you Steven, but when I read that passage "The Lord" means "God" to me and has nothing to do with Jesus. What am I missing?

sotto voce

Most of the thread.

stephan huller

Do you have a copy of Codex Alexandrinus (A) or Vaticanus (B) the two principal witnesses to anything related to the New Testament? If you did you wouldn't read 'Lord' but 'Jesus'? Moreover Origen - the oldest witness to the material - read 'Jesus.'

The reason our translations read 'Lord' rather than 'Jesus' is that these experts found the 'Jesus' reading 'difficult' - i.e. in other words they did feel comfortable with a Jesus being described as living at the time of Moses. So they picked the inferior attestation of 'Lord.'

There were some dissenting voices including Metzger but in the end the theologians won.

Now you're up to date.

andrewcriddle

According to jude 5 several translations have 'Jesus'. Douay-Rheims Bible, English Standard Version and New Living Translation.

Andrew Criddle

spin

This doesn't help me. It all seems to me like butterfly movements and you've got to somewhere that doesn't follow from your starting conditions.

Let's divide this text up. It starts with a typical intro, 1-2, with recipients and greetings, followed by a statement of purpose for writing, 3-4, next, the discourse, 5-16, then instructions, 17-23, and, finally, giving god his due, 24-25. Mention of Jesus stops at the end of v.4 and starts again with v.17. The actual discourse of the letter mentions nothing about Jesus. The references in the discourse are to Egypt, Sodom & Gomorrah, the body of Moses, the way of Cain, Balaam's error, Korah's rebellion, Adam and Enoch. Not only is Jesus not there, the discussion of all these references reinforces the subject of the material as god.

Sexual perversion is an easy target to point to and to have quick impact, but there is a lot more than flesh here. Everything is in danger through Balaam's error and Korah's rebellion along with slander and the rejection of authority. The writer puts it down to bad influences from outside and when they indulge their lusts (v.16), the writer doesn't refer to sexuality here but all things arising from lack of restraint. The fallen angels become the waterless clouds, the vain stars of v.13

Central to the discussion is the god of the old testament. I asked you who the subject of the act of keeping the naughty angel in chains (v.6), because it should be plain that it is god, not Jesus, and thus it is god who is the lord in v.5, as should be obvious if it weren't for the fact that later christianity has obfuscated the language by appropriating the non-titular use of "the lord" for Jesus. The manuscript mess regarding κυριος in v.5 revolves around scribes having to come to terms with this change and some of them change the text to refer to Jesus and give you slim grounds for the thought that you have worked out here. I just don't see that you have any support from the discourse section of the letter.