100 imo Flink T The following list of external evidence contains those variants that have a support of at least one primary, secondary or tertiary witness. I regard other variant readings as secondary corruption, because it is improbable that a reading not found in any of the genealogically most important witnesses would the “original”15. The relevant external infor- mation looks like this. ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς ὑμᾶς πάντα ὅτι κύριος ἅπαξ B // – // – // – ) // – // – // – πάντα ὅτι κύριος ἅπαξ ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς A 81 // 33c // 2344 // L:V Ä Cyr Ψ // – // – // – ἡμᾶς πάντα ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς ἅπαξ ὑμᾶς τούτο ὅτι ὁ κύριος ἅπαξ – // – // 2298 // – L 326 431 // 18 35 1836 1837 2374 // 254 1292 // al πάντα ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι ὁ κύριος ἅπαξ 1739* // 323 665 // 6 93 1881 // pc 2200 // 630 // – // pc K:SB πάντα ὅτι ὁ ᾽Ιησοῦς ἅπαξ ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ τούτο ὅτι κύριος 88 // 915 // – // – – // 1875 // 468 // pm PsOec ἅπαξ τούτο ὅτι ὁ κύριος 307 436 453 808 // 1067 // 61 2186 2818 // pc ἅπαξ ὅτι ὁ κύριος – // 1409 // – // – ἅπαξ τούτο ὅτι κύριος ᾽Ιησοῦς – // – // 1735 // – ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι ὁ θεός πάντα ὅτι ὁ θεός ἅπαξ C2 // 623* // 2805 // pc L:Vmss 442 // 621 1845 // 1243 1846 // pc L:T S:Ph ἅπαξ πάντα(ς) ὅτι ὁ θεός Xri/stoj P72c (P72*) ἅπαξ τούτο ὅτι ὁ θεός – // – // 5 // pc A The table above shows that the textual history is highly contaminated. No reading seems superior to all the rest on the basis of the external evidence alone, though it could be argued that ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς looks like a promising candidate (see below). I will deal with each four questions separately. (1) Should ὑμᾶς2 be included or excluded? The external evidence is as follows. The ὑμᾶς2 appears in ) B L 326 431 // 18 35 1836 1837 1875 2374 Of course it is possible that such is the case, no matter how small a change, but one 15 aspect of this study is to test the results from the CBGM method used in the ECM, which in turn cuts the need to go through every possible variant reading in any given witness.