The Pre-Human Existence of Christ Outside the Gospels - Part III

It is often said that John's is the only gospel in which the idea of a personal pre-human existence of Christ could somehow find support. It is claimed that in the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, this idea is absent.

In order to appraise the validity of this claim, we will explore what other books of the New Testament have to say on Christ's pre-human preexistence; by doing so, we will determine if it would be likely or not to find any references in the synoptic gospels to Christ's pre-human existence.

The argument is that if we can find the idea of Christ's pre-human existence present before 70 AD, it would be more plausible to find this idea in the synoptic gospels - and one would even expect then to find it there. It would be helpful to see how other Christians viewed this issue, because that would help us put the synoptic gospels into the 1st century context of Christian thought.

The first part of this article reviewed the writings of Paul. In the second part, the epistle to the Hebrews was reviewed. This third part will examine the epistle of Jude and the Revelation of John.

In the Epistle of Jude

Jude 5 Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.

The question is, which Lord does Jude mean here, to have saved Israel out of Egypt: the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Lord Yahweh, Christ Jesus' Father? The question is relevant because there are many versions of this verse in the Greek manuscripts. Some say Jesus, some Lord, others God.

UBS' 4th edition of the Greek New Testament, on which the majority of the modern translations are based on, chose from all these possibilities the second one, Lord. But the decision was a difficult one. Here's how the committee explains its decision:

Despite the weighty attestation supporting Iesous (A B 33 81 322 323 424^c 665 1241 1739 1881 2298 2344 vg cop^{sa, bo} eth Origen Cyril Jerome Bede; o Iesous 88 915), a majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility, and explained its origin in terms of transcriptional oversight (KC¹ being taken for IC²). It was also observed that nowhere else does the author employ Jesus alone, but always Jesus Christ. The unique collocation theos christos (God Christ) read by P⁷² (did the scribe intend to write theou christos, "God's anointed one"?) is probably a scribal blunder; otherwise one would expect that Christos would be represented also in other witnesses. (Metzger, Textual Commentary 2nd ed, p. 657)

[...]

[Critical principles seem to require the adoption of Jesus, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses (see above). Struck by the strange and unparalleled mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption out of Egypt, (yet compare Paul's reference to Christ in 1 Co 10,4), copyists would have substituted (o) kurios - Lord or o theos - God. It is possible, however, that (as Hort conjectured) "the original text had only o³, and that OTIO⁴ was read as OTIIC⁵ and perhaps OTIKC⁶" ("Notes on Select Readings," ad loc.).

It was indeed a difficult decision, as the D rating was assigned by the committee to this rendering of Lord. They explain what the the D rating means:

The letter A indicates that the text is certain.
The letter B indicates that the text is almost certain.
The letter C, however, indicates that the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.
The letter D, which occurs only rarely, indicates that the Committee had great difficulty in arriving at a decision.⁷

What is striking about this decision is that it is a purely theological one, based on internal grounds, one that willingly disregards the weighty attestation of the Jesus reading. Three out of five, the majority of this committee, decided that it was impossible for Christ to have been the one who liberated the Jews from Egypt. Despite the fact that "critical principles seem to require the adoption of Jesus, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses". Osborn, the author of the most extensive treatment of Jude 5, also writes:

the former reading has the best attestation among Greek and versional witnesses and ... critical principles require its adoption.8

So let's see the supporting manuscripts for each version 9. God and Christ God are poorly attested.

This is the attestation of the Lord reading:

• Codex Sinaiticus (IV A.D.)
• Codex Ephraemi C (V)
  
• Codex Athous Lavrensis (IX/X)
• Codex Mosquensis K (IX)
• Manuscript number 1175 (X), 2138 (1072 A.D.), 1243, 1846, 945 (XI), 436 (XI/XII), 1241, 1505 (XII), 1611 (XII), 630 (XII/XIII), 1292 (XIII), 1067, 1409 (XIV)
  
• Some individual manuscripts of the Vulgate against the majority of the Vulgate
• Syriac Harklensis (616 A.D.)
  
• Coptic versions (transl. began III A.D.)
  
• The M group ¹⁰

This is the attestation of the Jesus reading:

• Codex Vaticanus B (IV A.D.)
• Codex Alexandrinus A (V)
• Jerome (420 A.D.)
• Cyril (444 A.D.)
• Bede (735 A.D.)
  
• Manuscript number 33 (IX), 1739 (X), 1735 (X, has Lord Jesus), 81 (1044 A.D.), 2344 (XI), 424 (XI, later correcting hand), 323, 1241, 2298 (XII), 1881 (XIV), 322 (XV)
  
• The Vulgate (transl. began IV/V A.D.)
• Coptic Sahidic and Bohairic versions (transl. began III A.D.)
• In the margins, manuscript 1739 (X) attributes this comment to Origen (d. 254): "Jude says in his epistle, 'For Jesus once saved...'"
• Ethiopic version (transl. began 500 A.D.)
• Old Latin (ar manuscript, XI)

The weight of the external witnesses in favor of the Jesus reading is undisputed by the Committee, but they find it impossible to be the original reading based on internal grounds. The committee has also another argument in favor of Lord: nowhere else does the author employ Jesus alone, but always Jesus Christ.

But this is a rather unconvincing argument, taking into account the shortness of Jude's epistle. In response to this one might answer that almost every time Lord is mentioned, it is in reference to Jesus.

The committee explained the origin of the Jesus reading in terms of transcriptional oversight (KC being taken as IC, see above). In instances where a reading does not make too much sense this could be true. The only problem is, as Gathercole says 11, "a brief examination of the apparatus to NA27 does not seem to give any indication of this"change from KC to IC ever happening. Here's what Bauckham has to say (though he favors Lord):

It should be noted initially that to some extent this textual situation is not unusual, since there are many places, especially in the Pauline corpus, where the text varies between two of the three words kurios, theos and Christos, and in some cases between all three ... What is exceptional in Jude 5 is the reading Iesous which there seems to be no evidence of scribes deliberately substituting for kurios [Lord] or theos [God] elsewhere. - Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, 308

Gathercole comments on Bauckham's observation saying:

What this means is that "Jesus" is more likely to be original, since kurios is more likely to be replaced by Christos or theos. It is difficult to imagine why a scribe would change KC (kurios) to IC (Iesous).

Gathercole then goes on to say that the change from Jesus to Lord would be understandable since to a scribe it would have appeared odd to use Jesus with reference to an action that occurred prior to Christ's incarnation. So he would have wanted to clarify that not the fleshly Jesus saved Israel from Egypt, but rather maybe a preexistent Lord.

So it is no wonder that 2 (against 3) of the committee thought there are good reasons to adopt the Jesus reading. Gathercole also points out that out of the 3 members of the majority, one was "operating with a very limited range of options, either Lord or Joshua", not Jesus - but Joshua was clearly not the one who got the Jews out of Egypt.

But the internal grounds are not too much against the reading Jesus. One important aspect is what the previous verse says:

Jude 4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

So even if Jude initially wrote Lord, he still could be referring to Lord Jesus Christ, whom he just mentioned. But why would Jude think Jesus in a pre-human state has saved Israel from Egypt? Did not God himself do that? He surely did, but Exodus mentions an angel - literally a messenger in Hebrew - just before crossing the Red Sea:

Exodus 14:19-21 The angel of God, who had been going before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them. So it came between the camp of Egypt and the camp of Israel; and there was the cloud along with the darkness, yet it gave light at night. Thus the one did not come near the other all night. Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD swept the sea back by a strong east wind all night and turned the sea into dry land, so the waters were divided.

Could it be that Jude thinks God saved Israel from their Egyptian oppressors through his Son? If yes, this puts the Son as existing before the Flood, for Jude continues:

Jude 1:6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day

For more information on why Christ would be the messenger who liberated Israel from Egypt, see the discussion of 1 Corinthians 10:4 in the first part of these series, and the section "Liberation from Egypt" in the The Divine Messiah and Ancient Jewish Monotheism article.

Conclusion

The evidence for Christ's pre-human existence is not clear-cut in Jude 5, since we do not know with absolute certainty if Jude wrote Jesus or Lord. But there seem to be good reasons to believe he wrote Jesus.

Date of the Jude's Epistle

Jude 1:17-18 But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, "In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts."

Jude reminds the recipients of his epistle of what the apostles told them. As Gathercole concludes¹², perhaps this church received at one time a delegation consisting of some of the apostles. Taking into account that 1 Corinthians 9:5 says that "the brothers of the Lord" were involved then in missionary work, this could be placed in the mid-50s. This would allow for the missionary work of Jude - who was brother of James, and hence of Jesus - to be placed around the fifties.

In the Revelation of John

Revelation 3:14 To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:

The Greek word translated by NASB as "beginning" is arche, and it has basically two meanings: "beginning" and "ruler". BDAG says about this word:

1. the commencement of someth. as an action, process, or state of being, beginning, i.e. a point of time at the beginning of a duration.
2. one with whom a process begins, beginning fig., of persons: (Ge 49:3; Dt. 21:17, ...)
3. the first cause, the beginning
[...]
6. an authority figure who initiates activity or process, ruler, authority

So different translations have different renderings of this word. Some say "beginning", some say "source/origin", some say "ruler". These are among the ones saying "beginning":

1. The New American Standard Bible
2. Geneva Bible 1599
3. King James Version
4. Revised Standard Version
5. American Standard Version 1901
   
6. The English Darby Bible 1884/1890
7. The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
8. English Revised Version (1885)
9. English Standard Version
10. New Living Translation
11. The Bishops' New Testament (1595)
12. The English Revised 1833 Webster Update 1995
    
13. The Tyndale New Testament (1534)
    
14. The English Noah Webster Bible 1833

Did John want to say Jesus was the beginning of the creation or the ruler of the creation? It is interesting that, as BDAG points out at number 2, in Ge 49:3; Dt. 21:17, the Septuagint uses arche to say that the first born ofthe family was somebody's arche teknon, that is literally the beginning of [their] children:

Genesis 49:3 Ruben, thou art my first-born, thou my strength, and the first [arche] of my children, hard to be endured, hard and self-willed.

Deuteronomy 21:17 But he shall acknowledge the first-born of the hated one to give to him double of all things which shall be found by him, because he is the first [arche] of his children, and to him belongs the birthright.¹³

BDAG says about the occurance of arche in Revelation 3:14 that "the meaning beginning=‘first created’ is linguistically probable". If John understood it this way, he certainly believes Christ has a pre-human existence, as the first creature of God.

---

¹ "IC" is an abbreviation for Ἰησοῦς, Jesus in Greek. See Nomina Sacra <sup>(back)

2</sup> "KC" is an abbreviation for κύριος, Lord in Greek. See Nomina Sacra <sup>(back)

3</sup> o would mean "he" in English in this context. <sup>(back)

4</sup> In the manuscripts there were no spaces; OTIO would be OTI and O, which would mean "that he" in English in this context. <sup>(back)

5</sup> In the manuscripts there were no spaces; OTIIC would be OTI and IC, which would mean "that Jesus" in English. See the previous notes on why IC means Jesus.<sup>(back)

6</sup> In the manuscripts there were no spaces; OTIKC would be OTI and KC, which would mean "that the Lord" in English. See the previous notes on why KC means Lord.<sup>(back)

7</sup> The Greek New Testament, UBS, 4th ed.<sup>(back)

8</sup> "The Text of Jude 5", C.D. Osburn, Biblica 1981, 107-115. <sup>(back)

9</sup> See NA27, UBS 4th ed and Metzger Textual Commentary.<sup>(back)

10</sup> Manuscripts of the Byzantine Imperial text, plus Codex Monsquensis K (IX A.D.), Codex Angelicus L (IX A.D.) and others - see The Text of the NT by Kurt and Barbara Aland p. 249 for what M comprises.<sup>(back)

11</sup> The Preexistent Son, 38.<sup>(back)

12</sup> The Preexistent Son, p. 36. He quotes others who estimate as possible a date between 40 and 70 A.D. <sup>(back)

13</sup> Both verses as they appear in Brent's translation of the Septuagint.^(back)