115 Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5, 13, 15 and 18 in discontent and utter arrogant words (v. 16). They are scoffers (v. 8), who categorise people (v. 19)76. These descriptions would identify the opponents as false teachers whose deeds and words are likened to the way of Cain and the rebellion of Korah. The chiastic structure links verses 5-7 and 12-13 to identify these men with the ungodly (ἀσεβεῖϛ), whose ungodliness is of the same nature by thwarting the grace of God into a licentious immorality in deeds and words. Thus, it seems best to take τὰς ἑαυτῶν αἰσχύνας as “their abomi- nations” with an understanding that they are deeds and words that flow out of false teachings. Do they spill over their abominations? The author of Jude also describes these men as dangerous reefs (σπιλάδες), which points to the fact that in context these are men, who can shipwreck one’s faith. Is there a parallel in ἐπαφρίζω vs. ἀπαφρίζω? In anatomical works both ἐπαφρίζω and ἀπαφρίζω refer to the froth of the mouth, but there is a small difference in nuance. The use of ἐπαφρίζω would imply that a person is simply foaming, but ἀπαφρίζω implies that this foam is also cast off upon those around the one foaming77. Landon has argued that if it is cast off, it no longer remains on the ungodly men in Jude and thus ἀπαφρίζοντα should be rejected as a non-fit for the context78. Yet this is not the nuance ἀπαφρίζω has in anatomical texts. It is more to do with spilling over than removing the filth79. Also, in the context of Jude it is the waves of the sea that foam. This is a picture of a constant stream, not a one time event. If the “original” reading was ἐπαφρίζοντα, the text means that the men were foaming their own shameful abominations with which the read- ers of Jude had no part, but if the “original” reading was ἀπαφρίζοντα, there was a real or perceived danger that these shameful abominations were spilling over to the recipient of the letter. This may also explain the perceived urgency why the author wrote the letter (σπουδή in verse 3)80. Thus, in my opinion ἀπαφρίζοντα fits the context better81. Thuren, “Hey Jude”, 463. 76 Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 292. 77 Landon, Text-Critical Study, 110. 78 Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 293 n. 250. 79 H. Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des Griechischen Briefes bis 400 80 n.Chr (Helsinki 1956), 67-87, has shown that words like κοινὴ σωτηρία and ἀνάγκη (both used by the author of Jude) do not necessary mean a hasty reason to write something. They are typical of an apologia for not writing before. Yet σπουδή appears to add some kind of urgency to whatever the historical situation was behind the letter, whether real, perceived or fictitious. See also Thuren, “Hey Jude”, 451-65. Those in favour of ἀπαφρίζοντα include Kubo, P72 and the Codex Vaticanus, 87; 81 Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 293, though Wasserman argues for ἀπαφρίζοντα on the basis of ἀφρίζω, which is a common word in the NT. This is an odd reasoning, because both ἀπαφρίζω and ἐπαφρίζω derive from ἀφρίζω and as such it cannot decide the issue.