Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5, 13, 15 and 18 101 // 254 468 1292 (2298) // al PsOec16. This reading probable goes back to the second century via codex B, but it is geographically limited. Most witnesses appear in Syria with only three Egyptian witnesses ()BL). In contrast, ὑμᾶς2 is omitted by P72 A C2 Ψ 81 88 307 436 442 453 808 1739* 2200 // 33c 323 621 623* 630 665 915 1067 1409 1845 // 5 6 61 93 1243 1735 1846 1881 2186 2805 2818 2344 // al L:VT K:SB S:HPh Ä Cyr Ephr Hier. This omission goes back to the second century via P72 and K: S. It is geographically more widespread, found in witnesses from Egypt, Rome, Syria and Ethiopia. Both the earliest (P72) and the “best” (codex 81) witnesses omit the second occurrence of ὑμᾶς. For these reasons the external evidence favours the omission, but because ὑμᾶς2 is included in codex B, the decision needs to be backed up with the internal evidence. The ἡμᾶς is some witnesses needs to be rejected on the basis that it is an itacism (ὑμᾶς ἡμᾶς) and because it is inappropriate to the context17. The ECM does not have bold dots for this word, so the editors probably considered their decision to include ὑμᾶς2 as beyond reasonable doubt. Such a decision seems questionable. The internal evidence is complex. Several points should be noted. (I) The words εἰδώς and εἰδότας often stand alone in Greek literature without an expressed subject or object and the subject is taken from the main clause, which already has ὑμᾶς. Hence ὑμᾶς2 is superfluous and arguably lectio difficilior, prone to be omitted for stylistic reasons18. This speaks for its “originality”. Yet a scribe could have also added ὑμᾶς2 on the analogy of a genitive absolute to explicate the subject for εἰδότας19. This would conform to the usage found in the Septuagint, where εἰδότας always takes an explicit subject (1 Kgs 9,27; 2 Chr. 8,18; 4 Macc. 16,23; Amos 5,16). Thus, the argument for lectio difficilior is inconclusive, al- though the inclusion seems to be a bit more probable. Then again, the exclusion would conform to lectio brevior potior. (II) The second occurrence of ὑμᾶς could have dropped accidentally due homoioteleuton (ΕΙΛΟΤΑCΥΜΑC)20. If so, it had to happen in a Landon, A Text-Critical Study, 68, incorrectly prints the reading of P78 as βούλομε 16 ἀδελφοί εἰδότας ὑμᾶς. This papyrus reads only ϐουλομε αδελϕ due lacunae. It is of no help to determine the existence of ὑμᾶς2 in the text. Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 257. 17 Black, “Critical and Exegetical Notes”, 44; B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on 18 the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (Stuttgart 1994) 13*; J.R. Royse, “Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament”, in B.D. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes (eds.), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research. Essays on the Status Quaestionis (SD 46; Grand Rapids 1995), 244; A.P. Wikgren, “Some Problems in Jude 5”, in B.L. Daniels and M.J. Suggs (eds.), Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark (SD 29; Salt Lake City 1967), 149. S. Kubo, P72 and Codex Vaticanus (SD 7; Salt Lake City 1965), 58. 19 Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text, 350. 20