Timo Flink 102 very early stage of transmission in order to affect such a vast amount of manuscripts in diverse places, which seems unlikely. What may point to the accidental omission is the fact that there are 16 additions and 29 omissions in P72. This is consistent with argumentations that the omission was a more common phenomenon during the early period of transmis- sion of the text21. It might have happened here. (III) A scribe could have intentionally omitted the second ὑμᾶς by harmonising the text to a parallel account in 2 Pet. 1,12, which lacks the second occurrence of ὑμᾶς. However, 2 Pet. 1,12 is not a close verbal parallel, but a thematic one, which makes the harmonisation unlikely. Hence, the Petrine passage is not an argument either for the inclusion or for the exclusion of the second ὑμᾶς. It is simply non sequitar. (IV) The ὑμᾶς2 explicitly differentiates the addressees from the ungodly (ἀσεβεῖϛ) in verse 4 by way of a repetition of emphasis, a pleonasm. This is an unlikely motive for a scribal addition22, although the author does use a polished precision, which generally lacks pleonasms23. The author has already used a double ὑμᾶς in verse 3 (γράφειν ὑμῖν – γράψαι ὑμῖν), so its usage here (ὑπονμῆσαι ὑμᾶς - εἰδότας ὑμᾶς) would parallel that of the earlier verse24. But is it the author or a scribe how wrote the second ὑμᾶς as a double reference? It is questionable whether the author was trying to create a parallel structure, since the structure of verse 3 (infinitive-in- finitive) is not an exact match with that of verse 5 (infinitive-participle). Furthermore, the author composed the wording with exquisite care and there is no third occurrence of ὑμᾶς to create a triadic illustration as is seen in vv. 2-3 with ὑμῖν (x3) and in vv. 3-4 with ἡμῶν (x3)25. It looks more likely a scribal attempt for a double reference26. Even though the early scribes were prone to omit what they considered superfluous, it is difficult to explain the omission in so many versions and Royse, “Scribal Tendencies”, 246. 21 C.A. Albin, Judasbrevet. Traditionen, Texten, Tolkningen (Stockholm 1962), 599; 22 Black, “Critical and Exegetical Notes”, 44; Osburn, “The Text of Jude 5”, 111; Wachtel, Der byzantinische Text, 350; Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude , 257; Wikgren, “Some Problems in Jude 5”, 149; Pleonasm is a figure of speech and a stylistic fault. As a fault it is a redun- dant repetition of words. As a figure of speech it is a rhetorical device for emphasis. See Watson, Invention, Arrangement and Style, 65-66, who cites Quintilian Institutio Oratoria 8.3.53 and 9.3.46-55. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco 1983) 142. The argument for a style 23 against pleonasms is dependent on textual choices, so the argument is somewhat circular, even when the general tenor of the author’s style is to avoid pleonasms. This argument should not be given more than a secondary status i.e. it is an auxiliary argument. Albin, Judasbrevet, 599. J.B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of 24 St. Peter (London 1907), clxxxiii; Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude , 257. Landon, A Text-Critical Study, 69-70. 25 Landon, A Text-Critical Study, 69; Mayor, The Epistle of St. Jude, clxxxiii. 26