Jude 1:5 The Textual Variant Ἰησοῦς / κύριος and the Agent of the Exodus

Jude 1:5 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 a number of different arrangements.¹ Wasserman’s detailed treatment illustrates why the passage cannot adequately be discussed as though a single two-way variation exhausted the problem.

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 simply the conjunction introducing the content of Jude’s reminder; it is not an alternative to either “Jesus” or “Lord.” The substantive textual question concerns the noun that functions as the subject of the ensuing clause. Consequently, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς should not be treated as a third or compromise reading alongside Ἰησοῦς and κύριος. Nor does the occurrence of the same syntactical sequence elsewhere in the New Testament contribute much to the reconstruction of Jude 1:5. It establishes that the construction is grammatically unobjectionable, but it does not determine which subject stood in Jude’s initial text.

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

The editorial history of Jude 1:5 is itself 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 Jude installment of the Editio Critica Maior returned Ἰησοῦς to the primary line while marking [ὁ] κύριος as a competing alternative of substantial critical weight. Wasserman explicitly pointed to this movement—UBS2 Ἰησοῦς, UBS3/4 ὁ κύριος, and then back toward Ἰησοῦς in the ECM—as evidence of the exceptional difficulty of the passage.²

A chronological qualification is necessary, however. The relevant first-edition installment of ECM IV containing Jude appeared in 2005. The second revised edition of the ECM Catholic Letters appeared in 2013, whereas NA28 had already been published in 2012. It is therefore potentially misleading to write as though the published 2013 ECM² volume simply preceded and was then copied into the 2012 NA28. Rather, the revised text of the Catholic Epistles was prepared in connection with the ECM revision and incorporated into NA28 while that larger editorial work was still being completed. The INTF retrospectively states that ECM² contained thirty-three textual changes relative to NA27 and that these changes were adopted in NA28.³ (Manuscript Room)

The appearance of Ἰησοῦς in NA28 therefore reflects a renewed critical assessment of evidence already known rather than the discovery of a previously unknown manuscript reading. The important development is editorial judgment: the evidence was re-evaluated within the wider work on the Catholic Epistles.

This distinction is especially important when Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary is consulted. Metzger’s commentary 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

Metzger’s treatment requires a further qualification that is easily missed. The majority of the UBS committeepreferred [ὁ] κύριος, assigning the decision a D rating, indicating that the committee experienced great difficulty in reaching its decision. The majority regarded Ἰησοῦς as extraordinarily difficult, particularly because Jude elsewhere characteristically uses fuller designations such as Ἰησοῦς Χριστός rather than the personal name Ἰησοῦς alone. The possibility of confusion among abbreviated sacred names (nomina sacra) also supplied a possible transcriptional explanation for the rise of “Jesus.”⁴

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 helped explain the development of more expected alternatives such as κύριος and θεός. A scribe confronted with the striking assertion that Jesus delivered Israel from Egypt could readily have replaced the personal name with a title or noun more immediately associated with the Exodus narrative.⁵

The most precise description of the editorial history is therefore not “Metzger preferred ‘Lord,’ whereas NA28 later changed the text to ‘Jesus.’” Rather, 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 without an alternative in NA28.

Allen Wikgren had already developed his position more fully in “Some Problems in Jude 5,”⁶ a study to which Metzger’s commentary itself directs readers.

Roger L. Omanson’s A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament largely presents the majority committee’s reasoning in a form designed for translators and readers without specialist training in textual criticism. Omanson explicitly distinguishes the two principal questions in Jude 1:5—the identity of the subject and the location of ἅπαξ—and summarizes the objections to Ἰησοῦς, including Jude’s normal preference for “Jesus Christ” and the possible confusion of abbreviated forms of “Lord” and “Jesus.” His work is intentionally an adaptation and expansion of Metzger rather than an independent critical edition or fresh collation of the manuscript tradition.⁷

The External Evidence

The external evidence explains why the question has remained difficult. Ἰησοῦς enjoys important early and diverse support. In Wasserman’s presentation, the 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 explicitly concludes that (ὁ) Ἰησοῦς has the strongest manuscript support, even though he ultimately rejects it in favor of κύριος on internal grounds.⁸

This is why statements such as “most manuscripts read Lord” or “the best manuscripts read Jesus” are individually inadequate. κύριος certainly became numerically dominant in the later Greek tradition, but numerical predominance is not synonymous with textual priority. Conversely, the presence of Ἰησοῦς in important early witnesses such as Alexandrinus and Vaticanus cannot by itself settle the question. Date, geographical and genealogical relationships, the relative independence of witnesses, transcriptional probability, and intrinsic probability all have to be considered together.

The variation also appears to have arisen quite early. The simultaneous existence of Ἰησοῦς, κύριος, θεός, and θεὸς Χριστός in early and important streams of transmission indicates that the text had already become unstable at a comparatively early stage. Wasserman accordingly argues not only that “Jesus” has the strongest manuscript support but also that corruption occurred early enough that external evidence by itself does not permit an effortless reconstruction. (Translation Bible)

CNTTS and the Need to Verify Individual Witnesses

The CNTTS apparatus is valuable at precisely this point because it permits individual readings and manuscript witnesses to be searched in considerably 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 and is designed to provide extensive searchable evidence for New Testament textual variation.⁹

In the CNTTS display consulted for this study, Ἰησοῦς is represented, among other witnesses, by 02, 03, 1241, and 1739, whereas numerous witnesses are assigned to forms of κύριος, and 1243 is assigned to θεός. Such evidence is valuable descriptively, but the database should not be converted into a simple manuscript vote.

A further caution concerns 𝔓72. The particular CNTTS display consulted for this study appears to place 𝔓72 within a κύριος-coded line. Before this observation is used in a formal publication, the exact database release, display, and access date should be recorded and the witness should be independently verified. Published critical discussions consistently report 𝔓72’s distinctive reading as θεὸς Χριστός. Wasserman lists it explicitly under that reading, and the Tyndale House Greek New Testament apparatus likewise reports θεὸς Χριστός.¹⁰ Wasserman’s published witness distribution is unequivocal at this point.

This discrepancy illustrates an important methodological principle. CNTTS is highly useful as supplementary descriptive evidence, but when a database display conflicts with a published critical apparatus concerning a high-value early witness, the reading should be checked against the ECM, a reliable published transcription, or—where possible—the manuscript image itself. The argument should rest on the verified manuscript reading rather than on an unexplained database classification.

Wasserman and the Comprehensive Greek Tradition

Tommy Wasserman’s The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission is indispensable for the problem because its evidentiary base is far broader than that of an ordinary abbreviated apparatus. His study gathered the evidence of 560 Greek manuscripts of Jude, including dozens of lectionaries, with the stated purpose of collecting and analyzing the complete Greek textual evidence of the epistle.¹¹ (Lund University)

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

For Wasserman, the simple personal name Ἰησοῦς is intrinsically anomalous. Elsewhere in Jude the author normally employs fuller christological designations, whereas simple κύριος is entirely at home in the epistle. Wasserman also judges κύριος capable of explaining the emergence of the competing forms: its ambiguity could invite scribes either to clarify it as θεός or to identify it explicitly as Ἰησοῦς, while copying errors involving nomina sacra could create further variation. He therefore concludes that, although Ἰησοῦς has the best manuscript support, internal considerations favor κύριος, which in his judgment more successfully accounts for the other readings.¹² (Translation Bible)

This point is methodologically significant. Wasserman’s judgment prevents an overly simple argument of the form “the earlier or stronger manuscripts favor Jesus, therefore Jesus must be original.” His exhaustive study of the Greek tradition nevertheless leads him to κύριος, because he gives decisive weight to intrinsic and transcriptional considerations.

Flink’s Reassessment

Timo Flink subsequently reexamined Jude 5 and reached the opposite conclusion. He agrees that intrinsic probability favors κύριος, since the unqualified Ἰησοῦς would be exceptional within Jude’s normal style. He also acknowledges that plausible transcriptional scenarios can be proposed in both directions. Confusion between the nomina sacra ΚΣand ΙΣ could operate either way, while intentional clarification could likewise produce either Ἰησοῦς from an ambiguous κύριος or κύριος from a difficult Ἰησοῦς. Flink therefore regards transcriptional probability as substantially inconclusive. (BSW)

Where Flink differs from Wasserman is in the weight assigned to the external evidence. In his judgment, the manuscript evidence for Ἰησοῦς is sufficiently strong to override the intrinsic argument favoring κύριος. He consequently accepts Ἰησοῦς as the initial reading.¹³ (BSW)

Flink also insists that the disputed noun cannot properly 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. (BSW)

Here the relationship between Flink and the ECM available to him should be stated carefully. Flink did not disagree with that ECM over the noun Ἰησοῦς as such. The first-edition ECM treatment of Jude 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. He explicitly states that the complete sequence ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς was not the reconstruction offered by the ECM, NA27, or Wasserman. (BSW)

The disagreement between Wasserman and Flink is therefore more precise than a simple opposition between one scholar who favors “Lord” and another who favors “Jesus.” Both recognize that the external manuscript evidence strongly favors Ἰησοῦς, and both recognize the intrinsic difficulty of the simple name Ἰησοῦς in Jude. Their difference lies primarily in the weight assigned to those competing considerations. Wasserman considers the internal case for κύριος strong enough to overcome the external advantage of Ἰησοῦς; Flink regards transcriptional probability as too inconclusive to do so and allows the external evidence to decide the question.

That methodological contrast is one of the most instructive features of the debate.

Philipp F. Bartholomä likewise approaches the passage through reasoned eclecticism and argues that the traditional preference for κύριος should be reconsidered. His examination of both external and internal evidence leads him to regard Ἰησοῦς as a serious candidate for the initial reading and to emphasize the christological consequences should that reconstruction be accepted.¹⁴ (ResearchGate)

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. The graphical similarity of these contracted forms 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 in which it arose. A scribe might theoretically 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 explicitly stresses that accidental 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.¹⁵ (BSW)

The unusual θεὸς Χριστός of 𝔓72 is particularly significant in this respect. It provides direct evidence that the textual tradition was unstable at an early date and that scribes could produce striking formulations in this context. Wasserman does not regard the reading as original and does not consider it a simple conflation, since no surviving witness reads merely Χριστός. He instead explores whether the scribe’s handling of sacred-name abbreviations and christological language elsewhere in 𝔓72 may illuminate the form θεὸς Χριστός.

Such observations should nevertheless be distinguished from claims about scribal motive. Manuscripts establish which textual forms circulated. Reconstructing why an individual scribe generated a particular reading remains a historical inference and should normally be expressed in probabilistic rather than categorical language.

The Internal Case for κύριος

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

First, Jude’s ordinary christological usage creates a genuine difficulty for simple Ἰησοῦς. Elsewhere in the epistle, the name occurs within fuller expressions involving Χριστός, whereas κύριος can occur independently. Wasserman therefore regards a bare reference to the preexistent Christ as Ἰησοῦς as stylistically improbable. Flink concedes the force of this argument and states that intrinsic probability favors κύριος.

Second, κύριος possesses precisely the sort of ambiguity that could generate clarification. In the scriptural context of the Exodus, it naturally evokes the Lord God of Israel, while in Christian discourse—and within Jude itself—the title can also be applied christologically. A scribe who found that ambiguity unsatisfactory could make the referent explicit either as θεός or as Ἰησοῦς.

Third, Wasserman draws attention to Jude’s use of simple κύριος elsewhere in judgment contexts. This weakens the argument that a christological reading necessarily requires the explicit name “Jesus.” A reading κύριος could itself have been understood christologically by an early Christian reader. (Translation Bible)

These considerations explain why κύριος remains a serious contender even after the adoption of Ἰησοῦς in NA28.

The Case for Ἰησοῦς

The case for Ἰησοῦς, however, is correspondingly substantial.

Externally, it is supported by an impressive group of early and important witnesses, and Wasserman himself describes it as the reading with the strongest manuscript support. The evidence is therefore not a marginal or late phenomenon that can easily be dismissed as an isolated christological expansion.

Transcriptionally, Ἰησοῦς also 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 and remains an important argument in favor of Ἰησοῦς.

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 in different ways, producing κύριος, ὁ κύριος, θεός, ὁ θεός, or expanded combinations. That scenario is not demonstrable, but it provides a coherent explanation for the breadth of the variation.

Flink therefore concludes that, although the intrinsic stylistic argument favors κύριος, the external case for Ἰησοῦς is strong enough to override it. (BSW)

Christological Significance

If Ἰησοῦς represents the initial text, the christological significance is substantial. Jude would explicitly identify Jesus as the agent who delivered Israel from Egypt and subsequently judged the unbelieving generation. The verse would therefore place Jesus within Israel’s scriptural history prior to the incarnation and would constitute important evidence for an early Christian conception of Christ’s preexistence and participation in activity otherwise associated with the God of Israel. Flink and Bartholomä both draw attention to the significance of the reading for Jude’s Christology.¹⁶ (ResearchGate)

Such a conclusion should nevertheless be formulated with some restraint. If original, Ἰησοῦς establishes that Jude attributes the Exodus deliverance and subsequent judgment to Jesus. It does not by itself settle every broader question concerning “divine identity,” ontological categories, or the precise relationship between Jesus and God in Jude’s theology. Those claims require argument from the epistle as a whole and comparison with other early Christian rereadings of Israel’s scriptural history, particularly passages such as 1 Corinthians 10.

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 Jude, κύριος can also function christologically. Indeed, Wasserman himself argues that Jude elsewhere uses simple κύριος of Jesus. Thus “Lord” leaves the agent less explicit than Ἰησοῦς, but it does not necessarily rule out a christological referent. (Translation Bible)

The exegetical distinction is therefore important. Ἰησοῦς makes the christological identification explicit at the textual level. κύριος leaves that identification to 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 considerably more complex than a simple opposition between “Jesus” and “Lord,” and the position of ἅπαξ forms a related but distinct textual question. The conjunction ὅτι belongs to the syntax of the sentence and should not itself be treated as an alternative reading.

The editorial history likewise requires precision. UBS2 printed Ἰησοῦς; UBS3 and UBS4 returned to [ὁ] κύριος; the first-edition ECM treatment of Jude 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 published ECM² volume followed NA28 chronologically, even though the revision work underlying the two editions was closely related.

The manuscript evidence gives Ἰησοῦς an exceptionally strong external claim. Wasserman—despite ultimately preferring κύριος—explicitly acknowledges that “Jesus” has the best manuscript support. His disagreement with Flink is therefore not primarily over the existence of that external advantage. The decisive issue is how much weight it should receive in comparison with the intrinsic and transcriptional difficulties. Wasserman judges the simple Ἰησοῦς so anomalous and regards κύριος as so effective an explanation of the competing readings that he accepts κύριος despite the external evidence. Flink agrees that intrinsic probability favors κύριος, but finds transcriptional probability inconclusive and allows the stronger external evidence to decide in favor of Ἰησοῦς.

The adoption of Ἰησοῦς in NA28 is therefore a significant modern critical judgment, but not the end of the discussion. Ἰησοῦς has formidable external support and offers a plausible explanation for the emergence of more expected alternatives; κύριος has broad transmission and serious intrinsic and transcriptional arguments in its favor. The persistent disagreement among specialists working with extensive evidence makes Jude 5 an unusually clear example of why New Testament textual criticism cannot be reduced either to manuscript counting or to the mechanical application of lectio difficilior. External evidence, scribal behavior, authorial style, genealogy, syntax, and theological context all have to be weighed together.

If Ἰησοῦς is initial, Jude explicitly places Jesus within the Exodus story as deliverer and judge. If κύριος is initial, the christological identification remains possible but less textually explicit. The textual decision therefore bears directly on exegesis, while the history of the passage demonstrates the methodological care required before theological conclusions are built upon a disputed reading.

Notes

Tommy Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission, Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament Series 43 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2006), 255–66; 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; Tommy Wasserman, “Proposal for a New Rating System in Greek New Testament Editions,” The Bible Translator 60, no. 3 (2009): 140–57, esp. 143–52.
Wasserman, “Proposal for a New Rating System,” 143–52. Wasserman explicitly notes the movement from Ἰησοῦς in UBS2 to ὁ κύριος in UBS3/4 and back toward Ἰησοῦς in the first-edition ECM treatment of Jude.
Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Gerd Mink, Klaus Wachtel, et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior IV: Catholic Letters, first-edition Jude installment (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2005); 2nd rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013); Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012). The INTF states that ECM² contained thirty-three textual changes relative to NA27 that were adopted in NA28. Since NA28 appeared before the published ECM² volume, the relationship should be understood in terms of the shared revision work rather than a simple publication sequence.
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; United Bible Societies, 1994), 657–58.
Metzger, Textual Commentary, 657–58. The bracketed minority discussion is signed “B.M.M. and A.W.,” that is, 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.
Omanson, Textual Guide, 520–21.
Wasserman, “Proposal for a New Rating System,” 148–52. His distribution includes Ἰησοῦς in 02 03 33ᶜ 81 323 424ᶜ 665 1739 and others; ὁ Ἰησοῦς in 88 and 915; forms of κύριος and θεός in other witnesses; and θεὸς Χριστός in 𝔓72.
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.
The observation concerning CNTTS should be identified specifically with the display consulted for this study rather than attributed categorically to every form of the database. Compare Wasserman, “Proposal for a New Rating System,” 149–52, which unequivocally gives θεὸς Χριστός for 𝔓72; see also The Greek New Testament, Produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge (Wheaton, IL: Crossway; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), apparatus to Jude 5.
Wasserman, Epistle of Jude. Lund University’s description of the project states that the study presents evidence from 560 Greek manuscripts, including dozens of lectionaries, in an exhaustive apparatus.
Wasserman, Epistle of Jude, 255–66; idem, “Proposal for a New Rating System,” 148–52. Wasserman states that Ἰησοῦς has the best manuscript support while arguing that internal evidence favors κύριος.
Timo Flink, “Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5, 13, 15 and 18,” Filología Neotestamentaria 20 (2007): 95–125, esp. 105–13. Flink regards transcriptional probability as inconclusive, intrinsic probability as favoring κύριος, and the external evidence as sufficiently strong to establish Ἰησοῦς. His complete reconstruction is ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς.
Philipp F. Bartholomä, “Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? A Re-Examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5,” Novum Testamentum 50, no. 2 (2008): 143–58, https://doi.org/10.1163/156853608X268903.
Wasserman, “Proposal for a New Rating System,” 150–52; Flink, “Reconsidering,” 110–13.
Flink, “Reconsidering,” 112–25; Bartholomä, “Did Jesus Save the People,” 143–58. Bartholomä explicitly connects the possible originality of Ἰησοῦς with a high Christology including Christ’s preexistence.