S A K A E K U B O
T H E form of the text of Jude 22-3 has been a controversial one : scholarship is divided over the two-division or three-division form. The publication of p72,1 the earliest extant text of Jude, led to a re-examination of the form of this passage. Although J. N. Birdsall, C. D. 0 bs urn, and 12 accepted the reading of
~72 with its two divisions as original, no other scholars apparently have been persuaded. Since I have now changed my view on this variant, it seemed appropriate to honour Professor Metzger by offering a new examination of the data.
The purpose of this paper is to point out the weaknesses in the arguments, especially the most recent ones, which have been used to support the two-division form and to attempt to show that the three-division form as read by N is original. After a presentation of the textual evidence, we shall examine in turn :
(I) the possibilities of transcriptional error; (2) the arguments
for and against the two-division form ; and (3) the likelihood of the triple-division text as the original.
I
The evidence for Jude 22-3 may be outlined as follows:
A. The Two-Division Text
1 P#yrus I?& V’I-IX (ed. Michel Testuz; Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1959).
2 J. N. Birdsall, ‘The Text of Jude in P’~‘, J’rs 14 (1g63), 396-g; Carroll D.
Osbum, ‘The Text of Jude 22-23’, ,QVFV 63 (Ig72), 139-44; Sakae Kubo, p7a Md codsx ViJicanus (SD 27; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, rg65), 8g-g2.
P
240 S A K A E K U B O
2. With the main verbs U&&E and &E~TE (Z&&E) : (a) With one &&e (&keTE) :
quosdam autem saluate de igne rapientes, quibusdam uero miseremini in timore Clement (Adumb. Jud.) ; Moffatt
(b) With two hE’ E~TE (&&Te), the first in subordinate relation to
U&TE :
KCLi 04s /dV &idTE 8LaKpLVO$‘OVS Ud&TC dK ?rVp& ti/d~OVTCS, 09s 82 <h&TE b @&I B; Nestle Kilpatrick Tasker von Soden
Weiss WH ; Goodspeed .AG?ZB
3. With the main verbs &E~TE (&ETE) and U&TE:
(a) With S~aKpwc@vot :
KCLi 08s j..&dV &k&T7E 8LCLKfJLV&3’OL, 0;s 8; &’ +#?$) Cd&T6 <K PV&
dlJMTCi[OVTQS K L P (049 acj&Tac) 056 (0142 &fma~) 330 45 I (630
& +$+I after c$~~~OVTES) I 877 2 I 2 7 (2495 & qh@y after dtprr&-
[OVTES) &,z (Let ;K TOi? mpds) Ps-Oecumeniustxt Theophylacttxt’;
TR ; KjV Phillips
(b) With &aKpcvo$vq :
Kd O& j&V &EiiE 8LCLKpLVO/dV$J, 0v”S 63 Ud&TE E)K WV& Cifd~OVTES
& $bd&J 1505
(c) With S~aKpwo~lvovs :
KCLi 0v”S /.L&’ i&TE 8LCLKpLVO/.dVOVS, 08s 82 U’Cj&TE ZK 7TVphS dlp?rCi- fjOVTES &’ +&kjJ cz Syh
4. With main verbs E)X&ETE and U&&TE : (a) With SLaKpw@vo~ :
KCL: 0v”S J.&V &+ETE [ s i c ] 8LCLKPLVd/.LEVOL, 0v”S 8h & $d&J U;&TE E)K
‘ITV& C+d~OVTES 2492
(b) With &aKpwo~&ovs :
Kai 0v”S /LhV ;+xETE 8LCLKpLVO/dVOVS, 0v”S 62 U&TE ZK 7TVpiS &/M&
COVTES &’ +d&J c*
5, Conjecture : Schrage :
B. The Three-Division Text
I. With main verbs &$TE, U&&TE, and >E :
Kd 0v”S /Lb’ &C%TE 8LCLKpLVO&‘OVS, 0v”S 62 U&TE ZK 7WfdS Cifd~OVTES, 08s 62 &&TE iv C$C&J NC (K* C+r&TE) Y? ; K i l p a t r i c k S o u t e r ;
ASV Barclay LB NIV TEV Weymouth
2. With main verbs E’&yETE, Uh&TE, and E)hE&TE (&E~TE) : (a) With Starcpwop&ovs :
Kd OdS /L&J &i&ETE 8LCLKpLVO~&OVS, O& 6; U;&TE E)K ~V/.dS ~i/d-
Jude 22-3: Two-division Form or Three? 241
(IOVTES, 09s 82 &ki?iTE b +/+I ( A hi EECTE) 33 81 (181 &+TE) 326 (436 1241 &&TE) 1739 1881 itar~c*dem~div~p (pc adds OEOVI after +&J) vg copbo arm Ephraem ; Bover Merk Tischendorf Tregelles ;
3B (?) Knox NAB RSV
(b) With Swcpwdpwo~ :
KCd 07?S /L.aV &i+XETE ~LaKPLl’d/MVOL, O??S 6; E)V #d&J U;[ETE E)K 7TVfdS Ci~7Xi~OVTES, 08s 8; &E;T’E b @&J &oi? 629
3. With main verbs &i%TE (&EET7E), U&$TE, and %yXETE :
(a) With SLaKpwot.&ovs :
KCL: 05s $v ih&TE 8LaKpLVO/dVOVS, 0;s 82 & ‘#d&J UC&TC ;K ~VpdS Ci,PITCi~OVTES, O& 62 +XETE & $$h$J 8 8
(b) With S~aKpwc$wo~ :
KCLi O& /.dl’ :hdTC 8LaKPLVd/LWOL, 08s 8h CT&TE E)K 7TVp& Cip’TTCi- {OVTES, 08s 62 &+XETE & #?y 104 (945 E)v +d& before UC6[ETE)
(24 12 &ikYETE)
With main verbs &i&ETE, UC&-E, and E)%yXETTE :
KCd oik j&V +XETE 8LCLKflLVO/k’OVS, 0i;S 62 E)V +&J Uf&TE E)K WVpbS C&d~OVTES, O& 62 E)AkyXETE E)V +dpy PS-OeCUmeniUScomm
Theophylactcomm C o n j e c t u r e s : (a) Windisch and Schneider:
Kd 0i)S ,!L& &i+XETE 8LCLKpLVO/.dVOVS, 0v”S 8E U&T6 E)K 7TVp& C&d- COVTES, 0i;S 61 ~K~C&TE/&iUaTE b +$$J
(b) Bieder :
Kd 0v”S /Lb +XETE 8LCCKpLVO/L&OVS, 06.9 62 Uc;&TE $K ~VpCiS C$TCi- COVTES, O& 62 &?TE & +d&J
(c) Wohlenberg :
KC&i O??S /Lb ihE&TE SLCLKpLVO$VOVS, 08s 82 U&TE 2K 7TVfdS C&i- COVTES, 0v”S 82 &k-hCtTE iV $d/$
I I
,’
Scribal carelessness could explain the omission or addition of
017s after 8LUKpLVOp&OW through haplography or dittography respectively. The possibility of haplography in the case of p72 (variant AI) is real, because one would expect o& 66 since
oGS plv is found in the first clause. If the exemplar of p72 had
013s 6C here, it might lend some support to the reading of B (variant Apb), since 8LaKpLvOp&OVS could then be read with the first clause in B, and their texts would then be virtually the same except for the dropping of the first &&TE and the substitution of
24-2 S A K A E K U B O
c$T&u~~ for (J&E . . . C$I~T~~~V~ES in ~72. Another possibility of haplography-dittography can be seen as we compare B with N.
If a reading such as that of N (variant B I) were original, then the omission of 03s before CU.&& in B could only have been deliberate.
On the other hand, based on an original text such as that of B, the reading of N could be explained as due to dittography which subsequently led to the addition of 66.
I I I
Those who favour the two-division form follow either the reading of pT2 Clement (variant AI) or that of B (variant A2b).3 While Bigg and Moffatt4 had opted for the first reading before the publication of p T2, the publication of this earliest MS of Jude (and 2 Peter) no doubt has led scholars to provide arguments for its originality. The following arguments have been set forth in favour of the two-member form of g72 Clement (variant
A
I) :
I. This reading makes a clear-cut distinction between the classes of people discussed-those who should be snatched from the fire and those to whom mercy should be shown.5 With the three-division form it is very difficult to distinguish the two groups to whom mercy should be directed.
This argument, however, really backfires, since it goes against the canon that the difficult reading is usually preferable to the simple reading unless the former is completely without meaning.
This is not the case in this instance.
3 Several other two-division forms are accepted by some scholars, but hardly merit serious consideration. E. M. Sidebottom (Junzes, Jude and 2 Peter [NCB;
London: Oliphants, 19671, 92-3) apparently favours the reading of Cz (Age) because ‘there seem to be only two classes of people in question, not three’. Bo Reicke (The E’titles of James, Peter, and Jude [AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, x964], 215) selects the reading of the TR (A3a) and supports his choice incredibly by stating that it ‘seems to present fewest difficulties’. Friedrich Hauck (Die Briefe desJakobus, Petrw,Judas undJohannes [NTD IO; 8th edn.; Giittingen: Vanden- hoeck & Ruprecht, 19571, I 12) and Wolfgang Schrage (Die ‘kutholischen’ Briefe [ N T D I O; 11th edn.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19731, 231) both favour the reading of B (Anb), but the former would replace the first ~XE~TC with E)XE)YX~TQ. Because they see the second group as hopelessly lost, they prefer some word stronger than E)XE&~ in the second division. They both prefer a conjecture, either ~K/%~ETE or E'hdaarc.
4 Charles Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (ICC; 2d edn.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, rgo2), 34o-3; James Moffatt, The General Epistles: James, Peter, andJudas (MNTC; London: Hodder and Stough-
ton, rg28), 244. s Bigg, Commentary, 341.
Jude 22-3: Two-division Form or Three? 243 2. If this were the original reading, all other readings can be
explained on the basis of it. Bigg tries to show this by assuming that the scribe of B wrote down by accident the second clause first, then corrected himself without deleting what had already been written, and finally compounded the situation by also omitting the participle in the second clause.6 This confused text inevitably led to a semblance of clarity by the kind of text found in N (variant
BI)
and A (variant B2). Birdsall explains the rise of the other readings first by positing a hypothetical reading in which the clauses are interchanged resulting in05s $J &EL?TE &u~p~vo~&ous 62 E)K nup& cip&rcm i n s t e a d o f 0;s /.&iv ;K mp& cipmbare, &a~pw0~&0vs 62 &&TE as in p72.
He then suggests that the text of H is a conflation based on these two forms of the text. The scribe of M took this interchanged form and joined to it the last part of the ~7~ form thus duplicating the &&TE clause at the end. And by the duplication of the syllable -0~s by dittography the existence of the three-division form is thus explained. The form of B is due to the same con- flation except that in its case the 6E’ dropped out accidentally or because of lingering memory of the original two-division form.
The rise of X~XETE as a substitution for the first or the second
&E~T~E he considers as a development of the conflate text at- tested by N. The words
C&&TE .
. . ~~~~T~~OVTES are an expansion ofCip&CW
The original interchange of verbs is explained as due to the ambiguity of the meaning of the verb SLCZK~~VO~UL In Greek outside the NT and in the Apostolic Fathers it bears the meaning
‘to be judged’, but in the primitive Christian usage, ‘to argue’
or ‘to doubt’. In ~7~ ‘under judgement’, while in B ‘doubting’, would be more fitting in the context. ‘Originally (and not sur- prisingly in a writing of probable sub-apostolic origin) the general meaning was intended here: later when the New Testament was treated more as a unity, the “Christian” sense was applied, with resultant textual change’.* In other words when
&UK~~JO~MU, whose original meaning in Jude was ‘under judge- ment’, came to mean ‘doubting’, it was necessary to interchange the clauses so that 8~aKp~o~~vovs would be connected with
cipdm~t- rather than &E?T.E. Originally the verse was understood to mean, ‘Have mercy with fear on those under judgement’, but 6 Ibid., 342. 7 Birdsall, ‘The Text of Jude in P’~‘, 3969. 8 Ibid., 398.
244 SAKAE KUBO
with
the
word changing in meaning it was difficult to understandGLCCK~WO~&OUS in that sense with the phrase ‘with fear’. It would then read, ‘Have mercy with fear on those who doubt’. With the new meaning it would be much clearer if the verbs were inter- changed. It would read, ‘Snatch those who doubt with far’.
Osburn9 agrees with Birdsall that an early interchange of verbs took pla,ce but suggests that this was due to the substitution of ~~&ETE for &&ir by a scribe who understood Sc~~plv~p~
in the sense of ‘dispute’. ‘The scribe then reasoned that, logically, one should make an effort to refute or convict the disputers prior to undertaking the more drastic measure of snatching them from the fire, and thus he reversed the verbs’? The word C+&UT~ was expanded to a&7~ . . . +W~~[O~TPS in order to explain what 2~ m&s &p&uTc really meant. This explains the origin of the reading of C* (variant A4b).
Osburn states that the text of B is a conflation of P72 and C*, though it is difficult to see how he arrives at this. He attributes the omission of the o& SC to accident or to the influence of the original two-clause form. ‘In view of the harsh asyndeton with G&&E, it appears that 06s 6E’ was more likely added on [later], resulting in a substantially divergent message from that of the B text’.”
The text of N (variant BI) arose from the text of B through dittography of the last three letters of ~LUK~WO~&OVS. The text of Codex A (variant Brra) is derived from C* (variant Aqb) through the same dittography ‘and the addition of 05s 82
&&E & &$3q surviving from the original two-clause form’.Iz Or it could have arisen from the B text (variant Arab) through the substitution of &G~xE~E because of the difficult double
>E. The reading of K L P (variant Asa) is simply an emended R text. The second ANTE was omitted as an un- necessary duplication.
This argument that all other readings can be explained on the basis that the text one has chosen is the original is of course used by all those who consider their reading as the best. We need to determine, therefore, how well indeed the reading of p72 Clement can explain the rise of all the other variants. In the final analysis the determination of the best reading really comes down to this.
c
Jude 22-3: Two-division Form or Three? 245 It is unusual when, in order to explain the origin of the other variants, it is necessary to posit a completely hypothetical reading that is found nowhere among the MSS. The result is that both Birdsall and Bigg ironically have to spend more effort to explain the rise of this hypothetical reading than the rise of the other variants. But one might ask, if the reasons they give for the plausibility of the rise of these hypothetical variants are sound, should we not expect to find traces of such in our early MSS ? Osburn, on the other hand, posits a reading such as C* (variant A4b) with &G~XETE as the cause of the other variants. But it seems highly unlikely that out of this clearcut reading a reading such as B and ;K with the double >E could arise. Birdsall’s explanation of a hypothetical variant also requires the occur- rence of a highly unlikely double dittography of o&.
While Birdsall sees the reading of the majority text (variant Asa) as a descendant of his early hypothetical interchange of the verbs as arranged in Q 72, the fact that it appears in later MSS in that way (with no early evidence of any kind) should tell us that it is a later development and that something other than the reason he gives is the cause of this interchange. What in fact appears to have happened is that because of the difficulty in distinguishing the meaning of the &i?TE clauses, one of them has been dropped. In the case of the majority text the last clause has been simply dropped, pushing the IV +6/3tg of the last clause into the second clause, since that phrase is the only thing dif- ferent in that clause that needs to be preserved. In the case of pTa Clement (variant
A
I)
the first and third clauses have been combined with &a~prvop&o~s shifting to the third clause and making the first clause no longer necessary. It is much easier to explain ~72 on this basis, rather than to explain the rise of the three-division form on the basis of an early hypothetical inter- change of clauses.The 2v +&J is a troublesome phrase for Birdsall. For him its presence with the change of meaning of &u~plv~p~c led to the interchange of verbs. But in that case, would it not have been easier simply to drop the phrase so that an interchange of verbs would not be necessary? The change in the meaning of the verb does not necessitate an interchange of verbs. Osburn makes much of the fact that the meaning of 8~a~plvopu~ was ambiguous and therefore that &+XETe was substituted for &E~TE. But
9 Osburn, ‘The Text of Jude 22-23’, 139-41.
I0 Ibid., 141. 11 Ibid. I* Ibid., 142.
246 SAKAE KUBO
if the word was ambiguous would not the verb determine its meaning, in this case ‘to doubt’, or ‘to waver’, so that a sub- stitution would not have been necessary? The necessity arises from another reason, the need to distinguish the first and third groups in the three-division form.
The crux of the argument of Birdsall rests on the hypothetical variant. Since this approach is questionable (to explain the rise of other variants on the basis of a hypothetical variant rather than the text of their original reading), his argument does not rest on solid ground.
Bigg’s argument is highly improbable from a scribal point of view. Would it not be simpler to explain the text of B as resulting from the accidental omission of the 017s through haplography, which then caused the necessary omission of the 86, rather than to explain the other readings through his very complicated and highly tortuous explanation? B in fact has all the ingredients of a three-division form except for the omission of the OV~S SC,
Birdsall and Osburn also do not give the reason for the ‘con- flation’ to have taken place. This is especially difficult since the third clause adds nothing of substance to the text and in fact creates a more difficult reading. Why not simply leave the clauses interchanged ? Conflation does not ordinarily take place in that kind of circumstance and situation.
Birdsall contends that (T&Z& . . . ~$nd~ov~~s is an expansion of an original &M&JUTE while Osburn explains that this was due to the scribe’s perplexity in understanding the metaphorical
cipmiaar~ E)K nvpds. 13 If the latter were original, it is difficult to see why a scribe would change it to the former. It is easier, on the other hand, to see why a scribe would want to change C&&TE
. . . +7d~ovT~s to either (TC;[ETE or C&NU&UTE or &~&TE. %$[ETE
is less appropriate than C+&(TUTE or 6p77d[ETTE because of the E)K
my& following. Thus we find the latter two but not the former appearing alone without f$Rd~0~7ES in the witnesses. The idea of saving would have seemed redundant when the idea of snatching was present. And with $K mpds present it is easy to see why
C+&UTE would replace Gcl,[ETE Cip77&0&‘7E~.
3. The early wide attestation of this reading with the support of ~‘2, Clement, the Philoxenian Syriac, the Sahidic, and the Liber Comicus is also given as argument in its support.
I3 Birdsall, ‘The Text of Jude in p’*’ ,398; Osburn, ‘The Text of Jude 22-23’, 141.
Jude 22-3: T’o-division Form or Three? 247 As far as the early attestation of this reading goes, it should be balanced with internal considerations. It should also be noticed that the wide attestation is due to versional and patristic support.
It is significant to observe that where versional and patristic support is found, the readings have removed the difficult double
&MTE by having only two divisions (variants A2a, Aga) or by having substituted ih&ETE for &i?TE in the first (variant Brra) or in both the first and third clauses (variant B4). The reason appears to be that in a translation or in patristic usage, where more deliberation takes place, the tendency would be to remove such difficulties.
The arguments adduced in favour of the reading of Codex B are as follows :
I. In Kelly’s words, ‘its stylistic roughness and sheer difficulty as compared with the smoothness and correctness of the longer one’ speaks to its originality.14
The stylistic roughness of B which is given in its favour is probably due at least initially to scribal carelessness. Even Hort, who has a prejudice in favour of B, finds the text too difficult and suggests that it has undergone ‘some primitive error’.15 He thinks that perhaps the first &k?TE is an intrusion from below. Another difficulty with this reading is that 017s @V has to be used in a different way from oi;s 66 and not in the parallel relationship that one would expect.
2. It is easier to explain the readings of A and N if B were original.
How the reading of B can explain the origin of all other readings has not been shown by those who make this claim. It is true that the readings of N and A appear to be smoothened forms of B but no one has shown how the reading of p72 Clement could have arisen from that of B. In fact Bigg has attempted to show how the opposite was the case.16
3. Clarity is achieved only when the reading of B is accepted in which the first &kf?TE is explained by the a&& clause as an active mercy while the second &&TE deals with those who have gone beyond the point where active mercy can be useful. Thus
14 J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude (HNTC; New York: Harper, Ig6o), 288.
1s B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The fiw Testament in the Original Greek:
[II] Introduction, Afipendix (New York: Harper, 1882), 107.
I6 Bigg, Commentary, 342.