Jude 5

Discourse Analysis and Textual Variants in Jude 5-7: The Concept of ‘Frames’

This exegetical study of ‘Frames & Topic in Jude 5-7’ is based on a b-greek discussion from Fri Nov 23 17:08:50 2001. The initial post proposes that Jude 5-7 introduces several ‘frames’ in quick succession, which function as complex systems of concepts rather than simple presuppositions. These frames, once ‘instantiated,’ activate a whole complex of associated notions in the discourse, allowing the author to allude to well-known events with brevity.

The main exegetical issue under consideration is the application of discourse analysis concepts, specifically ‘frames’ and ‘topics,’ to the interpretation of Jude 5-7. The discussion explores how the biblical text draws upon shared cultural and historical knowledge (e.g., the Exodus, the rebellion of angels, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) as ‘frames’ that inform the reader’s understanding without explicit elaboration. This approach offers a lens for appreciating the rhetorical efficiency of Jude’s argument and prompts an examination of whether this concept aligns with traditional literary critical terms like ‘topos,’ highlighting the interplay between linguistic theory and biblical hermeneutics.

Greek text (Nestle 1904)

5 ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ τοῦτο, ὅτι ὁ κύριος λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν.
6 ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀιδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν.
7 ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις, τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις τρόπον ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• Verse 5: Nestle 1904 reads ὁ κύριος (ho kyrios, “the Lord”), whereas SBLGNT (2010) reads Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous, “Jesus”).

Textual criticism (NA28), lexical notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

The most significant textual variant in Jude 5 occurs in the identification of the subject who “saved a people out of the land of Egypt and subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.” The Nestle 1904 text, adopted here, reads ὁ κύριος (“the Lord”), which aligns with the traditional Septuagintal rendering for God. However, the SBLGNT (2010) and NA28 main text prefer Ἰησοῦς (“Jesus”). The NA28 apparatus indicates strong manuscript support for both readings. The reading ὁ κύριος has ancient and widespread support (including P72vid, א, A, B, C*, Ψ, Byz), pointing to an understanding of God the Father as the agent, consistent with Old Testament narratives. The reading Ἰησοῦς, though also well-attested (P72*, C2, L, P, 0233, 33, vg, syr), introduces a Christological interpretation of the Exodus event, suggesting a pre-incarnate activity of Jesus. The choice between these variants impacts the theological emphasis, with ὁ κύριος maintaining a broader divine reference, while Ἰησοῦς directly links Christ to ancient acts of judgment and salvation.

Lexical notes provide further depth to the text’s implications:

• ἀπώλεσεν (v.5): KITTEL extensively discusses this verb, emphasizing its meaning “to destroy, ruin, lose” in contexts of divine judgment, signifying both physical destruction and eternal perdition. BDAG notes its use in Jude 5 concerning those who did not believe, indicating decisive and definitive judgment by God.
• ἀρχὴν (v.6): KITTEL elaborates on the semantic range of ἀρχή, spanning from “beginning” to “rule, authority, dominion, realm.” In Jude 6, it denotes the angels’ proper sphere of authority or original domain, which they failed to “keep.” BDAG reinforces this, defining it as “the position occupied by one in authority, high office, rule.”
• οἰκητήριον (v.6): KITTEL describes this as a “dwelling place,” often with connotations of a proper or divinely appointed habitation. BDAG specifically highlights its usage in cosmic contexts, referring to the angels’ designated abode, implying a transgression of divinely established boundaries.
• ἐκπορνεύσασαι (v.7): KITTEL traces this verb’s usage from literal sexual immorality to metaphorical spiritual apostasy, particularly in the Old Testament prophetic tradition regarding Israel’s unfaithfulness. Its application to Sodom and Gomorrah signifies extreme moral depravity and rebellion against divine order. BDAG provides “to give oneself over to immorality, practice sexual immorality.”
• δείγμα (v.7): BDAG defines this as “an example serving as a warning.” KITTEL would explore its rhetorical force, underscoring that the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah serves as a clear, enduring object lesson for the recipients of Jude’s letter.

Translation Variants with grammatical & rhetorical analysis

Jude 5-7 presents three historical examples that serve as “frames,” each introduced concisely and acting as a referential anchor to complex, shared narratives. Grammatically, each example functions as a subordinate clause or participial phrase linked to the main assertion of judgment.

Verse 5 introduces the “Exodus frame” through the participial clause λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας (“having saved a people out of the land of Egypt”) and the subsequent result τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν (“afterward destroyed those who did not believe”). The phrase ο κυριος (or Ιησους) serves as the agent, and the entire historical episode acts as a topic that is immediately commented upon by the selective judgment. The author leverages the audience’s knowledge of the Exodus narrative, not just as salvation, but as a dual event of rescue and subsequent judgment against the unfaithful (Numbers 14, 1 Corinthians 10:5-10).

Verse 6 shifts to the “Angels frame” with ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον (“and the angels who did not keep their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling place”). Here, the participial phrases concisely introduce the established narrative of angelic rebellion (likely Genesis 6 and 1 Enoch), identifying the “topic” as these rebellious angels. The “comment” is their current state: εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀιδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν (“he has kept in eternal bonds under gloomy darkness for the judgment of the great day”). The rhetorical impact lies in the immediate recognition of this specific act of transgression and its corresponding, enduring punishment.

Verse 7 introduces the “Sodom and Gomorrah frame” with ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις (“just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them”). This establishes the topic, followed by a sequence of participial clauses: τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις τρόπον ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας (“having similarly indulged in sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh”). These describe the cities’ transgression. The “comment” then is their enduring consequence: πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι (“they serve as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire”). The parallelism with the previous examples (judgment following transgression) is clear, and the explicit mention of “eternal fire” heightens the warning.

The grammatical structure of these verses—juxtaposing a historical topic with an immediate comment on judgment—is highly rhetorical. Jude uses these frames as shorthand, relying on the audience’s stored knowledge to fill in the narrative gaps and amplify the warning against the ungodly within the church. A translator must strive to convey this sense of implicit knowledge and the weight of these well-known judgments.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The concept of ‘frames’ in Jude 5-7 illuminates the rhetorical power of allusion in biblical texts. Jude does not recount these stories in detail but rather activates complex narratives in the reader’s mind, relying on shared background knowledge to communicate a powerful message of divine judgment against disobedience. This efficient use of ‘frames’ allows Jude to provide compelling examples of past judgment that serve as warnings for his contemporary audience, emphasizing the inevitability and severity of God’s wrath against similar transgressions. Recognizing these frames helps to appreciate the text’s argumentative force and avoid overly literal or reductive interpretations.

1. I wish to remind you, though you once knew this: that the Lord, having saved a people out of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling place, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness for the judgment of the great day. In the same way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

   This translation emphasizes the sequential nature of events and maintains a direct, declarative tone, reflecting the authoritative voice of Jude. It uses “the Lord” for consistency with the Nestle 1904 Greek text.

2. I want to remind you—you already know all this—that God rescued a people from Egypt, yet afterward he destroyed those who rejected him. And consider the angels who abandoned their initial position of authority and their own habitation; God has kept them in perpetual chains in utter darkness until the judgment of the great day. So too, Sodom and Gomorrah and the adjacent towns, after indulging in gross immorality and pursuing illicit desires, stand as a clear warning, suffering the penalty of eternal fire.

   This version employs a more interpretive and dynamic equivalence, using “God” instead of “the Lord” to clarify the agent for a contemporary audience, and “rejected him” to capture the essence of “did not believe.” It also makes explicit the “warning” aspect of the Sodom example.

3. Even though you know these things, I want to recall to your minds how Jesus, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not have faith. And angels, those who did not retain their own authority but deserted their designated habitation, he has reserved in everlasting bonds under deepest gloom for the judgment of the great day. Similarly, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, having committed gross sexual immorality and pursued alien flesh, are set forth as a cautionary lesson, enduring the vengeance of perpetual fire.

   This translation incorporates the “Jesus” variant from SBLGNT in verse 5, offering a Christological reading. It also uses more vivid language (“deepest gloom,” “vengeance of perpetual fire”) to convey the severity of the judgment, emphasizing the “cautionary lesson” aspect.