Jude 5 The Textual Variant Ἰησοῦς / κύριος and the Agent of the Exodus

Jude 5 contains one of the most difficult textual problems in the Catholic Epistles and, by Tommy Wasserman’s estimation, one of the most difficult in the New Testament. The problem is sometimes reduced to a choice between Ἰησοῦς (“Jesus”) and κύριος (“Lord”), but the textual tradition is considerably more complex. At least two related questions must be distinguished: first, the identity of the subject who delivered Israel from Egypt and subsequently destroyed the unbelieving generation; and second, the position and syntactical function of ἅπαξ (“once,” “once for all”). The surviving witnesses preserve Ἰησοῦς, κύριος / ὁ κύριος, θεός / ὁ θεός, the remarkable θεὸς Χριστός in 𝔓72, and several expanded forms, while the surrounding words likewise occur in numerous arrangements. The ECM accordingly treats a considerably larger variation unit than the disputed noun alone.¹

In what follows, “initial text” is used in the ECM sense of Ausgangstext: the reconstructed text standing at the outset of the recoverable transmission history, without presupposing that every reconstructed reading can simply be equated with the authorial autograph. This terminology is particularly appropriate in a discussion engaging the Editio Critica Maior and the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM).²

The NA28 text reads, in the relevant portion, … ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας …, approximately, “… once for all, that Jesus, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt….” Here ὅτι is the conjunction introducing the content of Jude’s reminder; it is not an alternative to either “Jesus” or “Lord.” The substantive question concerning the subject is which noun stood before λαόν and governed the subsequent verbal sequence.

The position of ἅπαξ, however, is a genuine component of the textual problem. Some witnesses place it before πάντα, yielding forms corresponding to ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι …; others transmit forms in which ἅπαξ follows the subject clause; still others associate it with τοῦτο. These arrangements affect whether ἅπαξ is read primarily with the addressees’ knowledge or in closer relation to the saving action and the following τὸ δεύτερον. The problem therefore concerns not only who saved Israel but also how Jude structured the relationship between prior knowledge, deliverance, and subsequent judgment.³ Timo Flink’s reconstruction, ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς, must be understood against this larger word-order problem.

Editorial History: UBS2, ECM¹, NA27, ECM², and NA28

The editorial history of Jude 5 is unusually instructive. NA27 and UBS4 printed [ὁ] κύριος, whereas NA28 prints Ἰησοῦς. The Textus Receptus likewise reads ὁ κύριος and thus stands behind the form represented in the KJV. Yet the history is not a simple progression from an older consensus for “Lord” to a newly discovered reading “Jesus.” UBS2 had already printed Ἰησοῦς; UBS3 and UBS4 subsequently adopted [ὁ] κύριος; and the first-edition ECM treatment of Jude again placed Ἰησοῦς in the primary line while marking [ὁ] κύριος as a serious alternative. Wasserman points to this movement as evidence of the exceptional difficulty of the passage.⁴

A chronological qualification is necessary. The relevant first-edition ECM installment containing Jude appeared in 2005. The revised ECM Catholic Letters appeared in 2013, whereas NA28 had already been published in 2012. The published ECM² therefore did not simply precede and supply the text of NA28. Rather, the revised text of the Catholic Epistles was prepared in connection with the ECM revision and incorporated into NA28 while that editorial work was still being completed.⁵

The appearance of Ἰησοῦς in NA28 thus reflects a renewed assessment of known evidence rather than the discovery of a previously unknown reading. The CBGM contributed coherence and genealogical information to that reassessment, but it did not mechanically determine that Ἰησοῦς should be printed. Local stemmata and judgments of priority still require philological and transcriptional evaluation. The method informs editorial reasoning; it does not replace it.⁶

This distinction is important when Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary is consulted. Metzger explains the committee decision associated with UBS4 and NA27 and therefore should not be read as an explanation of the later NA28 text.

Metzger, Wikgren, and the UBS Committee

The majority of the UBS committee preferred [ὁ] κύριος, assigning the decision a D rating. The majority regarded Ἰησοῦς as especially difficult because Jude elsewhere characteristically uses fuller designations such as Ἰησοῦς Χριστός rather than the personal name Ἰησοῦς alone. Possible confusion among abbreviated sacred names (nomina sacra) also supplied a transcriptional explanation for the rise of “Jesus.”⁷

Metzger himself, however, should not simply be described as rejecting Ἰησοῦς. The bracketed minority discussion in the Textual Commentary records the dissenting judgment of Bruce M. Metzger and Allen Wikgren, who argued that ordinary principles of textual criticism favored Ἰησοῦς. In their judgment, the very difficulty of the reading could explain the emergence of more expected alternatives such as κύριος and θεός.⁸

The most precise account is therefore that UBS4/NA27 printed [ὁ] κύριος by majority committee decision, while Metzger and Wikgren dissented in favor of Ἰησοῦς. Their minority judgment anticipated, at least with respect to the identity of the subject, the reading later given greater prominence in the ECM tradition and adopted in NA28. Wikgren had already developed his position more fully in “Some Problems in Jude 5.”⁹

Roger L. Omanson’s A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament presents the majority committee’s reasoning in a form designed particularly for translators. Omanson distinguishes the two principal questions in Jude 5—the identity of the subject and the location of ἅπαξ—and summarizes both Jude’s usual preference for “Jesus Christ” and the possible confusion of abbreviated forms of “Lord” and “Jesus.” His work is an adaptation and expansion of Metzger rather than an independent critical edition or fresh collation.¹⁰

The External Evidence

The present study concentrates primarily on the Greek manuscript tradition. Versional and patristic evidence is relevant to the wider reconstruction of Jude 5 but is not treated exhaustively here. The following conclusions concerning external support therefore refer primarily to the Greek evidence.

In Wasserman’s presentation, simple Ἰησοῦς is represented by 02 (Alexandrinus), 03 (Vaticanus), 33ᶜ, 81, 323, 424ᶜ, 665, 1739, and other witnesses, while ὁ Ἰησοῦς occurs in 88 and 915. The anarthrous κύριος is represented by 01 (Sinaiticus), 044, 1875, and others, while ὁ κύριος appears in a substantial group of witnesses and became numerically dominant in the later Greek tradition. Forms of θεός also occur, and 𝔓72 preserves the singular θεὸς Χριστός. Wasserman concludes that (ὁ) Ἰησοῦς has the strongest manuscript support, even though he ultimately rejects it in favor of κύριος on internal grounds.¹¹

A small selection of important witnesses makes the early plurality immediately visible:

Witness	Approximate Date	Subject Reading
𝔓72	III/IV	θεὸς Χριστός
01 Sinaiticus	IV	κύριος
03 Vaticanus	IV	Ἰησοῦς
02 Alexandrinus	V	Ἰησοῦς
1739	X	Ἰησοῦς

The table abstracts the disputed subject from the larger variation unit; the witnesses do not necessarily agree in the surrounding words or the placement of ἅπαξ. Nevertheless, the plurality is already evident among the earliest surviving witnesses. It would therefore be misleading to say simply that “the earliest manuscripts read Jesus.”

Statements such as “most manuscripts read Lord” or “the best manuscripts read Jesus” are likewise inadequate. κύριοςbecame numerically dominant in the later Greek tradition, but numerical predominance is not equivalent to textual priority. Conversely, the presence of Ἰησοῦς in Alexandrinus and Vaticanus cannot by itself settle the question. Date, genealogical relationships, the relative independence of witnesses, transcriptional probability, and intrinsic probability must be weighed together.

For the same reason, “early and textually significant support” is preferable to the looser phrase “early and diverse support.” A manuscript list can establish early and important attestation; it does not by itself demonstrate geographical independence or genealogical dispersion. The safest conclusion is that Ἰησοῦς possesses early and textually significant support and, in Wasserman’s judgment, the strongest Greek manuscript support.

CNTTS and the Verification of Individual Witnesses

The CNTTS apparatus is valuable because it permits individual readings and manuscript witnesses to be searched in greater detail than is possible in the compact apparatus of a hand edition. The third edition, released in 2021, represents a major revision of the database.¹²

Database evidence, however, should function as a tool for locating and comparing witnesses rather than as a substitute for verification. This is particularly important in a variation unit as complex as Jude 5, where database categories may abstract from combinations of subject, article, pronoun, word order, and correction.

The present argument therefore does not depend on an unreproduced CNTTS classification of 𝔓72. Published critical sources identify the papyrus’s distinctive reading as θεὸς Χριστός, and that reading should be used unless a contrary database classification can be documented by exact release, query or variation-unit identifier, access date, and, where permitted, an archived display. The larger methodological principle is straightforward: when a database classification appears to conflict with established apparatus evidence concerning an important early witness, the manuscript or a reliable transcription should be checked before the database coding is incorporated into an argument.

The witness itself remains the evidence; the apparatus or database is a representation of that evidence.

Wasserman and the Comprehensive Greek Tradition

Wasserman’s The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission is indispensable because its evidentiary base extends far beyond an ordinary abbreviated apparatus. His study gathered evidence from 560 Greek manuscripts of Jude, including dozens of lectionaries, with the aim of collecting and analyzing the Greek textual evidence of the epistle.¹³

Despite acknowledging that Ἰησοῦς possesses the strongest manuscript support, Wasserman reconstructs the passage with the anarthrous κύριος. His position is important precisely because it demonstrates that a preference for “Lord” need not arise from neglect of the external evidence. His decision turns instead on his evaluation of the internal probabilities.

The stylistic argument can be stated quantitatively. In the undisputed text of Jude, every occurrence of the personal name Ἰησοῦς appears with Χριστός. The combination occurs in vv. 1, 4, 17, 21, and 25, with v. 1 containing it twice. By contrast, simple κύριος occurs in vv. 9 and 14. Thus, if Ἰησοῦς is initial in v. 5, a bare use of the personal name for the preincarnate Christ would indeed be exceptional within the epistle.

Two qualifications are necessary. First, Jude is extremely short, so the sample is small. Second, the occurrences of κύριος in vv. 9 and 14 are not exact stylistic parallels. Jude 9 gives the traditional or scriptural formula ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι κύριος, while Jude 14 places κύριος within the Enochic prophecy ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν κύριος. The evidence therefore supports the claim that bare Ἰησοῦς would be anomalous without establishing simple κύριος as an unqualified authorial norm in the same kind of discourse.

For Wasserman, however, the internal case extends beyond frequency. He judges κύριος capable of explaining the competing forms: its ambiguity could invite scribes either to clarify it as θεός or identify it explicitly as Ἰησοῦς, while confusion involving nomina sacra could contribute further variation. He therefore concludes that, although Ἰησοῦς has the strongest manuscript support, internal considerations favor κύριος.¹⁴

Flink’s Reassessment

Timo Flink reaches the opposite conclusion while conceding much of Wasserman’s internal case. He agrees that intrinsic probability favors κύριος, since the unqualified Ἰησοῦς would be exceptional within Jude’s normal style. He also argues that plausible transcriptional scenarios can be proposed in both directions. Confusion between the nomina sacra ΚΣ and ΙΣ could operate either way, while intentional clarification could produce either Ἰησοῦς from an ambiguous κύριος or κύριος from a difficult Ἰησοῦς. Flink therefore regards transcriptional probability as substantially inconclusive.¹⁵

His decisive difference from Wasserman lies in the weight assigned to the external evidence. In Flink’s judgment, the manuscript evidence for Ἰησοῦς is strong enough to override the intrinsic preference for κύριος. He consequently accepts Ἰησοῦς as initial.

Flink also insists that the disputed noun should not be isolated from the larger variation unit. His reconstruction is:

ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς

and he identifies this entire sequence as the initial text of Jude 5.

This point clarifies his relationship to the first-edition ECM. Flink did not disagree with that ECM over the noun Ἰησοῦς as such. The ECM already placed Ἰησοῦς in the primary line, with [ὁ] κύριος marked as a serious alternative. Flink’s distinctive proposal concerns the larger reconstruction of the variation unit, especially the placement of ἅπαξ and the sequence of the surrounding words.

The Wasserman–Flink disagreement is therefore more instructive than a simple opposition between “Lord” and “Jesus.” Both recognize the external strength of Ἰησοῦς, and both recognize a genuine intrinsic difficulty in the bare personal name. Their disagreement concerns the relative weight of those considerations and which reading best explains the surviving variation.

Philipp F. Bartholomä likewise reconsiders the traditional preference for κύριος and argues that Ἰησοῦς deserves serious consideration as the initial reading, particularly because of the strength of its external support and the explanatory force of its difficulty.¹⁶

Nomina Sacra and Transcriptional Probability

One possible factor in the development of the variants is the early Christian convention of nomina sacra. In manuscripts, the competing readings might appear not as fully written words but in contracted forms such as ΚΣ for κύριος, ΙΣ for Ἰησοῦς, and ΘΣ for θεός. Their graphical similarity provides a plausible mechanism for accidental confusion.

The existence of nomina sacra, however, establishes only a mechanism by which variation could arise, not the direction of variation. A scribe might have misread ΚΣ as ΙΣ, but an unexpected ΙΣ could equally have been replaced, consciously or inadvertently, by the more contextually predictable ΚΣ or ΘΣ. Flink stresses that confusion could operate in either direction, while Wasserman allows for a mixture of deliberate alteration and copying error even though he ultimately thinks κύριος best explains the surviving alternatives.¹⁷

The unusual θεὸς Χριστός of 𝔓72 is important because it provides early evidence of instability in the subject expression and shows that a striking christological formulation circulated in this context. It should not, however, be forced into a simple linear scenario as though it demonstrated exactly how one principal reading developed from another.

Manuscripts establish which textual forms circulated. Reconstructing why an individual scribe generated a particular reading remains a historical inference and should normally be expressed probabilistically.

The Internal Case for κύριος

The strongest argument for κύριος is therefore not numerical predominance but intrinsic and transcriptional probability.

First, Jude’s ordinary christological usage creates a genuine difficulty for simple Ἰησοῦς. In the undisputed text, Jude combines Ἰησοῦς with Χριστός; a bare reference to the preincarnate Christ as Ἰησοῦς would be unique within the epistle. The sample is small, but the pattern is real.

Second, κύριος possesses the kind of ambiguity that could invite clarification. In the scriptural context of the Exodus it naturally evokes the Lord God of Israel, while in Christian discourse the title can also refer to Jesus. A copyist who found the reference insufficiently explicit could therefore clarify it either as θεός or as Ἰησοῦς.

Third, simple κύριος in vv. 9 and 14 shows that the word itself is not foreign to Judean discourse, even though both occurrences belong to inherited scriptural or traditional material and are not exact stylistic parallels.

These considerations explain why κύριος remains a serious contender despite the external strength of Ἰησοῦς.

The Case for Ἰησοῦς

The case for Ἰησοῦς is correspondingly substantial.

Externally, it is supported by an impressive collection of early and important witnesses, and Wasserman himself describes it as possessing the strongest manuscript support. The reading is therefore neither marginal nor late.

Transcriptionally, Ἰησοῦς has an obvious claim as the more difficult reading. An explicit statement that Jesus rescued Israel from Egypt is striking enough that scribes could plausibly have replaced it with the less surprising κύριος or θεός. This possibility was central to the dissent of Metzger and Wikgren.

The multiplicity of substitute readings is also suggestive. If Ἰησοῦς stood at an early stage of the tradition, different scribes might independently have responded to its difficulty by producing κύριος, ὁ κύριος, θεός, ὁ θεός, or expanded combinations. The scenario is not demonstrable, but it offers a coherent account of the breadth of the variation.

The textual decision thus turns not on whether the external and internal evidence point in different directions—they plainly do—but on how those probabilities should be weighted.

Christological Significance and 1 Corinthians 10

If Ἰησοῦς represents the initial text, the christological significance is substantial. Grammatically, Ἰησοῦς would be the subject of both σώσας and ἀπώλεσεν: Jesus is the one who saved a people from Egypt and subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. When the phrase “agent of the Exodus” is used here, it refers to this grammatical attribution and should not be taken to presuppose a particular metaphysical theory of subordinate divine agency.

A useful comparison appears in 1 Corinthians 10, where Paul likewise rereads Israel’s wilderness history christologically. In 1 Cor 10:4, the Israelites drink from the spiritual rock, and “the rock was Christ” (ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός). More strikingly for Jude 5, 1 Cor 10:9 possesses its own variation among Χριστόν, κύριον, and θεόν in a warning drawn from Israel’s wilderness rebellion. Another early Christian text therefore places Christ within Israel’s wilderness history and, at precisely such a point, displays textual instability over a christologically charged divine referent.¹⁸

The parallel does not prove that Ἰησοῦς is initial in Jude 5, nor does it establish literary dependence. Its value is comparative: it demonstrates that locating Christ within Israel’s wilderness history was intelligible in early Christianity and that such formulations could generate textual variation.

The christological consequences of Ἰησοῦς should likewise be distinguished in ascending levels. First, if Ἰησοῦς is initial, Jude portrays Jesus as preexistent, since he is placed within the Exodus generation. Second, Jude attributes to Jesus the acts of saving Israel and judging the unbelieving generation, activities associated in the scriptural narrative with Israel’s divine deliverer and judge. Third, whether this amounts to a straightforward identification of Jesus with YHWH is a broader theological judgment requiring argument from Jude’s use of Scripture, divine titles, and christology as a whole.

This distinction prevents the textual decision itself from being asked to carry a larger theological conclusion than the grammar establishes.

Conversely, κύριος does not necessarily exclude a christological interpretation. In the Septuagintal context of the Exodus, κύριος naturally evokes the God of Israel, since the title frequently represents the divine name. Yet within early Christian discourse the title can also function christologically. Thus Ἰησοῦς makes the identification explicit at the textual level; κύριος leaves the referent less explicit and therefore more dependent on interpretation.

Conclusion

Jude 5 remains a genuine textual crux, not a problem rendered trivial by the appearance of Ἰησοῦς in NA28. The surviving tradition is more complex than a simple opposition between “Jesus” and “Lord.” The identity of the subject intersects with variation in ἅπαξ, πάντα, τοῦτο, the article, pronouns, and word order, so the reconstruction ultimately concerns a larger variation unit rather than an isolated noun.

The editorial history likewise requires precision. UBS2 printed Ἰησοῦς; UBS3 and UBS4 returned to [ὁ] κύριος; the first-edition ECM again placed Ἰησοῦς in the primary line while registering [ὁ] κύριος as a serious alternative; and the revised Catholic Epistles text prepared in connection with ECM² was incorporated into NA28. The CBGM contributed important coherence and genealogical information to that work without mechanically determining the resulting reading.

Externally, Ἰησοῦς possesses the stronger Greek manuscript claim, including early and textually significant witnesses. Yet the earliest surviving evidence is already plural: 𝔓72, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus preserve different forms. Internally, a bare Ἰησοῦς is genuinely exceptional against Jude’s otherwise consistent use of the name with Χριστός, although the brevity of the epistle limits the statistical force of that observation.

The most instructive result, therefore, is not merely that Wasserman and Flink disagree. They substantially agree about the evidential profile. Both recognize the external strength of Ἰησοῦς; both recognize a genuine intrinsic advantage for κύριος; and both acknowledge the difficulty of reconstructing the direction of variation. Their disagreement arises from the relative weight assigned to those considerations and from differing judgments about which reading best explains the emergence of the others.

Jude 5 is consequently instructive precisely because the disagreement does not arise from radically different bodies of evidence. Wasserman and Flink can assess substantially the same evidence and nevertheless reconstruct different initial readings. The variant thus exposes with unusual clarity the irreducibly judgmental dimension of textual criticism: extensive collation, genealogical information, transcriptional models, and stylistic analysis constrain the decision considerably, but they do not reduce it to a mechanical procedure.

If Ἰησοῦς is initial, Jude explicitly places Jesus within the Exodus and wilderness story as the subject of Israel’s deliverance and the subsequent judgment of unbelief. The comparison with 1 Corinthians 10 shows that such a christological rereading of Israel’s wilderness history was intelligible within early Christianity, while the textual problem of 1 Cor 10:9 demonstrates that precisely such formulations could become unstable in transmission. If κύριοςis initial, a christological interpretation remains possible but is less explicit at the textual level. The textual decision therefore bears directly on exegesis, while the disagreement over that decision provides a particularly clear example of how external evidence, authorial style, scribal behavior, genealogy, syntax, and theological context interact in the reconstruction of the New Testament’s initial text.

Notes

Tommy Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission, Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series 43 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2006), 255–66; Peter M. Head, “Editio Critica Maior: An Introduction and Assessment,” Tyndale Bulletin 61 (2010): 131–52.
Tommy Wasserman and Peter J. Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017); Head, “Editio Critica Maior,” 131–52.
Timo Flink, “Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5, 13, 15 and 18,” Filología Neotestamentaria 20 (2007): 95–125, esp. 104–13, 125; Wasserman, Epistle of Jude, 255–66.
Tommy Wasserman, “Proposal for a New Rating System in Greek New Testament Editions,” Bible Translator 60 (2009): 140–57, esp. 143–52.
Barbara Aland et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior IV: Catholic Letters (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2005); 2nd rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013); Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
Wasserman and Gurry, New Approach to Textual Criticism; Head, “Editio Critica Maior,” 131–52.
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 657–58.
Metzger, Textual Commentary, 657–58. The minority discussion is signed “B.M.M. and A.W.,” referring to Bruce M. Metzger and Allen Wikgren.
Allen Wikgren, “Some Problems in Jude 5,” in Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark, ed. Boyd L. Daniels and M. Jack Suggs, Studies and Documents 29 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967), 147–52.
Roger L. Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), 520–21.
Wasserman, “Proposal for a New Rating System,” 148–52.
H. Milton Haggard Center for New Testament Textual Studies, CNTTS New Testament Critical Apparatus, 3rd ed., ed. David Champagne, Earl Kellett, and Mark Tagami (New Orleans: New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2021), Jude 5.
Wasserman, Epistle of Jude.
Wasserman, Epistle of Jude, 255–66; Wasserman, “Proposal for a New Rating System,” 148–52.
Flink, “Reconsidering the Text,” 105–13.
Philipp F. Bartholomä, “Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? A Re-Examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5,” Novum Testamentum 50 (2008): 143–58.
Wasserman, “Proposal for a New Rating System,” 150–52; Flink, “Reconsidering the Text,” 110–13.
Bartholomä, “Did Jesus Save the People,” 143–58; Jarl E. Fossum, “Kyrios Jesus as the Angel of the Lord in Jude 5–7,” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 226–43; Sin Pan Ho, “Moses and Christ in the Wilderness Narrative: Transformation of Religious Traditions in 1 Cor 10,” Religions 14 (2023): 906.

Bibliography

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Gerd Mink, Klaus Wachtel, et al., eds. Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior IV: Catholic Letters. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2005.

———. Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior IV: Catholic Letters. 2nd rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013.

Bartholomä, Philipp F. “Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? A Re-Examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5.” Novum Testamentum 50 (2008): 143–58. doi:10.1163/156853608X268903.

Champagne, David, Earl Kellett, and Mark Tagami, eds. CNTTS New Testament Critical Apparatus. 3rd ed. New Orleans: H. Milton Haggard Center for New Testament Textual Studies, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2021.

Flink, Timo. “Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5, 13, 15 and 18.” Filología Neotestamentaria 20 (2007): 95–125.

Fossum, Jarl E. “Kyrios Jesus as the Angel of the Lord in Jude 5–7.” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 226–43.

Head, Peter M. “Editio Critica Maior: An Introduction and Assessment.” Tyndale Bulletin 61 (2010): 131–52.

Ho, Sin Pan. “Moses and Christ in the Wilderness Narrative: Transformation of Religious Traditions in 1 Cor 10.” Religions 14 (2023): 906. doi:10.3390/rel14070906.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.

Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012.

Omanson, Roger L. A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.

Wasserman, Tommy. The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission. Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series 43. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2006.

———. “Proposal for a New Rating System in Greek New Testament Editions.” Bible Translator 60 (2009): 140–57.

Wasserman, Tommy, and Peter J. Gurry. A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017.

Wikgren, Allen. “Some Problems in Jude 5.” Pages 147–52 in Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark. Edited by Boyd L. Daniels and M. Jack Suggs. Studies and Documents 29. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967.