Timo Flink, «Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5,13,15 and 18.», Vol. 20 (2007) 95-125
The text of Jude has been reconstructed recently by two different works to replace the critical text found in the NA27. The Novum Testamentum Editio Critica Maior (ECM) and a monograph by T. Wasserman offer changes to the critical text. I evaluate these suggested changes and offer my own text-critical suggestions. I argue that in Jude 13, 15 and 18 the text should read a)pafri/zonta, pa/ntaj tou\j a)sebei=j, and o3ti e!legon u(mi=n o3ti e)p ) e)sxa/tou tou= xro/nou, respectively. These solutions differ from both the NA27 and the ECM and agree with Wasserman’s reconstruction. I suggest that the «original» reading in Jude 5 was a3pac pa/nta o3ti )Ihsou=j, which none of the above works have.
Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5, 13, 15 and 18 121
cumbersome. Thus, intrinsically the absence of ὅτι is possible but it is
not strong enough to offset the external evidence or the transcriptional
probabilities. The second ὅτι should be included in the text107.
Jude 18b
This textual variation unit has to do with the prepositional phrase with
or without the definite article. Should the text read á¼Ï€á¾½ á¼ÏƒÏ‡Î¬Ï„ου χÏόνου
ἔσονται (ECM) or á¼Ï€á¾½ á¼ÏƒÏ‡Î¬Ï„ου τοῦ χÏόνου ἔσονται (Wasserman) or
something else? This textual variation unit includes numerous different
phrases, not all of equal value108. The NA27 reads τοῦ in brackets. The
ECM editors indicate by bold dots that there are other variant readings of
equal value or that the printed text is not absolutely certain in the minds
of the authors, but it is not possible to tell which readings they are refer-
ring to and how to interpret the meaning of these dots109. For the purpose
of this study I assume that only the prepositional phrase is in dispute, not
the following verb. This is based on the assumption that á¼Î»ÎµÏσονται for
ἔσονται is a harmonisation to 2 Pet. 3,3 and the singular ἀναστήσονται
(Ψ) may reflect Synoptic influence110. The external evidence is as follows.
I have not included readings, which have no support in the primary or
secondary witnesses. They all appear to be secondary corruptions.
á¼Ï€á¾½ á¼ÏƒÏ‡Î¬Ï„ου χÏόνου á¼Ï€á¾½ á¼ÏƒÏ‡Î¬Ï„ου τοῦ χÏόνου
P72 B C Ψ // 623 // 5 1243 // – ) A 431 436 2200 // 33 630 1067 1409 1837
1845 1852 // 254 1292 1846 // pc Cyr1/2 Did
Ephr
á¼Ï€á¾½ á¼ÏƒÏ‡Î¬Ï„ου τῶν χÏονῶν
81 307 453 1739 // 323 // 6 2186 2298 2805
2818 // pc Cyr1/2 K:SBA
á¼Î½ á¼ÏƒÏ‡Î±Ï„á¿· χÏονῷ á¼Ï€á¾½ á¼ÏƒÏ‡Î±Ï„á¿· τοῦ χÏόνου
L 88 808 // 18 35 915 1836 1875 2374 // 326 // – // – // –
468 // pm PsOec
Landon, A Text-Critical Study, 123; Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 312.
107
Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 189-90.
108
ECM IV.4, 426. J.K. Elliott has already noted this unfortunate setback in his review.
109
The fact that dots are not used with consistent meaning casts doubt on their usefulness. See
J.K. Elliott, “Editio Critica Maiorâ€, 138. G. Mink told me in a private communication (July
26, 2007) that the bold dots are only hints and some find them useful, others do not.
Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 314.
110
FOLLOW US