My interest is always piqued when a reading in the Byzantine text is not what’s translated in the KJV. Famous examples where the former lacks text the latter includes are Acts 8.37 and 1 John 5.7-8. In these cases, the bulk of Greek MSS is decidedly on the side of the Byz text against the KJV. But there are other, less notable cases, that go the other direction. In these cases, the KJV abandons the Byz text in favor of the less dominant reading.
Today I came across one in the best known section of Jude, the doxology (vv. 24-25). There we find a difference in our manuscripts as to who God is said to be able to “keep/protect blameless” (φυλάξαι ... ἀπταίστους) in v. 24. The NA28 prints the direct object as ὑμᾶς and gives, in a negative apparatus, the following alternates: ημας A vg-ms sy-ph ¦ αυτους P Byz. According to Tommy’s work on Jude and Klaus Wachtel’s on the Catholic Letters, the NA reading is attested in over 100 Greek MSS; ἡμᾶς is found in less than 10; and αὐτούς in over 300.
 |
| Jude 24 in 1611 KJV |
The NA reading provides the smoother reading since the previous verses are addressed to the readers who have been warned against “the garment stained by flesh.” In light of this danger, it comes as a relief to be told that there is one who is able to “protect you from stumbling.” The Byz reading, which Wachtel includes in his list of “atypical majority readings,” is less obvious. Who could “they” be and why would Jude switch to address them? The answer comes from the Byz text of v. 23 where it is those who the readers are called on to save by snatching from the fire. God is able to keep them from stumbling. You could certainly argue that this is the lectio difficilior and some have (e.g., Tommy and A. J. Brown).
But, as I said, this is not the reading of the KJV even though it is the reading found in all of Erasmus’s editions. It is also not the reading of Tyndale’s editions, the Matthew Bible, the Geneva Bible or Luther’s 1522 Septembertestament for that matter. Luther and Tyndale particularly stand out here since both used Erasmus as their source and Erasmus has “they” in both his Greek and Latin columns. One waits until Stephanus 1550 to see ὑμᾶς in the margin where it is said to be supported by 5, 6, 2298, and a now lost MS (δ, ε, ι, ια). For his part, Beza has “you” (vos / ὑμᾶς) in his first and last editions which he explains as follows (in his first edition):
Vos ὑμᾶς. Ita lego ex Veteris interpretis and quatuor veterum codicum authoritate. Quod si malimus legere ἀυτοὺς dicemus pro ἑαυτοὺς positum, ita ut eodem recidat sententia. Neque enim videtur satis commode accipi posse pro ipsos vel eos, ut convertit Erasmus.
Which can roughly be translated as
Vos ὑμᾶς. Thus I read from the authority of the Old Interpreter [Jerome, I assume] and the four old codices. But if we prefer to read ἀυτοὺς, we will say that it is placed instead of ἑαυτοὺς, so that the sentence falls back on the same thing. For it does not seem like it can be taken quite conveniently for ipsos or eos, as Erasmus translates.
Beza, of course, could not be the source for Luther and Tyndale. Neither could Stephanus. More likely is that they have here decided to follow the Vulgate instead of their main source in Erasmus. They were then followed by others who, in time, could point to Stephanus and Beza as further support.
One final note. Given the number of minuscules that support ὑμᾶς, the Byz edition of Robinson-Pierpont has listed it as an alternate in the margin as it does whenever the Byz text is split like this. Since the expressed method in that edition is to use internal evidence when the Byz reading is split, one must assume that the editors felt αὐτούς was finally preferable on those grounds rather than on external ones. Would that we had a commentary on such a decision!
In any case, this is an interesting example where the old KJV has the same text as our modern eclectic editions over and against the dominant Byzantine text.
