Variation Unit 4.4
δεσποτην θεον K L P Ψ 049
syrPh, h
δεσποτην 𝔓72 𝔓78 א A B C
If it can be shown conclusively
that the word δεσπότην in v.
4 refers unequivocally to Jesus Christ, then δεσπότην θεόν can be rejected on contextual grounds. The first part of my
discussion, therefore, attempts to establish whether δεσπότην in v. 4 is indeed a reference to
Jesus Christ.
Bigg, Bauckham, Kistemaker and
Bolkestein all believe that the word δεσπότην at v. 4 is a reference to Jesus Christ, a view which
presupposes that δεσπότην is
the better variant. In defence of this view, Bauckham cites Eusebius HE 1.7.14, where there is a reference to
Jewish people known as δεσπόσυνοι.
The background in Eusebius concerns Jewish people whose birth certificates and
other family records had been burned by Herod. To preserve the memory of their
pure lineage, the members of some Jewish families memorized these records. The
term δεσπόσυνοι in Eusebius
underscores the point that certain Jews were of good stock because of their
family connections with τὸ σωτήριον—the
Saviour—a word which appears to be a reference to Jesus; although, Bauckham
omits to tell his readers that τὸ σωτήριον
could equally well refer to God, as it does in v. 25. Bauckham does not deny
here that the chronology of his citation from Eusebius makes his argument one
of inference rather than proof.
Kistemaker’s view that the word δεσπότης at v. 4 refers to Jesus
Christ is underwritten by a grammatical rule mentioned in Dana and Mantey.
Kistemaker says that ‘… in the Greek only one definite article precedes the
nouns Sovereign [master] and Lord. The rule states that when one article controls
two nouns the writer refers to one person’. The applicability of this rule here
is questionable. Bauckham recalls the same rule, but points out that κύριος often appears without an
accompanying article. It is quite normal for κύριος to be anarthrous in the New Testament, since like θεός, κύριος is near to being a proper noun.
As has been pointed out by Fuchs
and Reymond, elsewhere in his epistle, the writer is careful to make the
distinction between Jesus Christ and God, and in v. 25 he specifically uses the
adjective μόνος in agreement
with θεός. Jude is unlikely
to have deviated from the set expressions which appear at vv. 17, 21 and 25 as
unequivocal references to Jesus Christ: at none of these verses is δεσπότης extant, thus nowhere in
Jude is the word δεσπότης
linked to any of the set expressions which refer to Jesus Christ, so my
deduction is that at v. 4, the word δεσπότης is separate from the set expression κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν. It would seem that the epithets
used of God and of Jesus Christ in vv. 4, 21 and 25 follow the pattern
discernible elsewhere in the New Testament, with Jesus Christ being referred to
within a set expression as κύριος
rather than δεσπότης, and
with God as δεσπότης. The
reference of δεσπότης to God
is unequivocal at Lk. 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10; and 2 Tim. 2:21.
The relationship between Jesus
and his disciples need not necessarily be perceived as a ‘slave-master’
relationship. Voelz has made the suggestion that the way in which Jesus hands
over authority to his disciples in Lk. 9:1 signifies that they were in a rabbi-pupil
relationship, not in a slave-master relationship. If this view is correct, then
it decreases further the likelihood that δεσπότην at v. 4 is a reference to Jesus Christ.
The proposition should be
considered that the word δεσπότης
is not used of Christ anywhere in the New Testament other than at 2 Pet. 2:1.
Bauckham has argued convincingly that 2 Peter is dependent upon Jude on the
grounds of Jude’s more polished and tightly constructed literary structure, and
that the word δεσπότης at 2
Pet. 2:1 is borrowed from Jude. However, this hypothesis need not undermine my
theory that δεσπότην θεόν may have
been the original reading in v. 4. The author of 2 Peter may have seen δεσπότην θεόν in v. 4, and decided for his
own reasons to break with Jude’s traditional usage. This would account for the
appearance of δεσπότην in 2
Pet. 2:1 as an apparent reference to Jesus Christ.
The evidence considered thus far
suggests that the word δεσπότην
in v. 4 is no less likely to be a reference to God than to Jesus Christ, and so
the contextual argument in favour of the reading δεσπότην is not decisive. Thus far I have
shown that the reading δεσπότην θεόν cannot
be rejected on intrinsic grounds.
Two positive intrinsic arguments
can be cited briefly in defence of δεσπότην θεόν: (1)
since Jude’s source material derives from extra-canonical and Old Testament
authors, it is possible that Jude wrote τὸν μόνον δεσπότην θεόν to re-express slightly a phrase known to writers such as
Josephus; (2) the presence of a comparatively high number of hapax legomena in Jude should prepare us
not only to expect words which occur nowhere else in the New Testament, but
also phrases which are equally rare, such as δεσπότην θεόν.
Regarding the transcriptional
evidence, commentators who have looked at this problem invariably stress that
the reading δεσπότην θεόν has θεόν appended to make the sentence
less ambiguous since δεσπότην
could refer either to Jesus Christ or to God. However the possibility that θεόν was deliberately removed
rather than added must also be considered. The reading δεσπότην θεόν is unlikely to be a
doctrinally altered reading, whereas the same cannot be said of δεσπότην without θεόν. Ehrman has noted a tendency towards
anti-adoptionist corruptions of the New Testament text in 𝔓72:
A striking example [of
anti-adoptionist corruption] occurs in the salutation of 2 Pet. 1:2: ‘May grace
and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of our Lord Jesus’. 𝔓72
omits the conjunction ‘and’ (καί),
leading to the identification of Jesus as God: ‘in the knowledge of God, our
Lord Jesus’. That this omission was not an accident is confirmed by similar
modifications in the same manuscript.
This example from 2 Pet. 1:2 can
be used as a paradigm for the problem at Jude 4. If Ehrman is correct about the
direction of corruption away from adoptionist ‘heresies’, and if the conflict
between adoptionism and orthodoxy is the reason for the variation at the unit
here, then it is likely that δεσπότην θεόν as the
reading at v. 4 which shows God and Jesus as two separate entities was
shortened by anti-adoptionist orthodox scribes to remove the word θεόν. Such an alteration is
explicable as a wish to show God and Jesus as the same entity, thereby
stressing the divinity of Christ.
My decision to accept δεσπότην θεόν at this unit is based mainly
on transcriptional evidence, which suggests that of the two readings, it alone
resists orthodox interference. (Charles Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude [Journal for the Study
of the New Testament Supplement Series 135; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1996], 63–67)
