124 Timo Flink in the LXX, but mymyh is translated as ἐν χρόνῳ in Jos. 4,24, and mymy as χρόνος in Job 32,7. This makes it possible for the author of Jude to understand mymyh as χρονῶν or χρόνου with a slight edge for the singular reading, even though the Hebrew is plural. While the Hebrew expression has the article, Jos. 4,24 demonstrates that the Greek phrase can omit it. The absence of article is better Greek while the inclusion is more Semitic. It seems unlikely that any scribe would change good Greek to more Semitic type of expression rather than vice versa119. The scribe of P72 could have omitted the article because of his tendency to shorten the text (41 omissions), though most of his omissions are not related to the definite articles120. The plural τῶν χρονῶν in some witnesses (including codex 81) is likely a harmonisation to 1 Pet. 1,20. Interestingly, 1 Pet. 1,20 has a secondary textual variant reading ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τοῦ χρόνου read by ) Ψ, which may have been taken from Jude. Albin has argued that homoioteleuton can explain the omission (εσχατουτου εσχατου)121. These observations support reading ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τοῦ χρόνου122. In contrast, the ECM reading ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου χρόνου can be argued on the basis that the author of Jude composed his letter with exquisite care and adding the article would be awkward. Without the article the expres- sion is ambiguous (“in the last time” or “in the last of time”) and adding the article makes the phrase less ambiguous123. As such the inclusion is suspect as a scribal emendation. Another possibility is a partial harmoni- sation to 1 Pet. 1,20. The article may be a result of accidental dittography due fatigue perhaps (εσχατου εσχατουτου). The author of Jude has both articular and anarthrous genitive constructions in his letter, but it is of some note that μεγάλης ἡμέρας, the only other temporal reference in genitive case, is anarthrous. That may give some stylistic support for the omission of the article in v. 18. To conclude, the external evidence gives a slight edge for the inclu- sion. Transcriptional probability may go both ways. Intrinsic probability slightly favours the omission. However, if the article was originally absent, it is difficult to explain why so many early Greek fathers and early Coptic text (Sahidic) has it. Thus, it seems best to accept the article as “original”, with some reservations. Albin, Judasbrevet, 618; Bigg, St. Peter and St. Jude, 338, notes that ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου 119 χρόνου is better Greek and less Hebraistic. H. Paulsen, Der Zweite Petrusbrief und der Ju- dasbrief (Meyers XII/2; Göttingen 1992), 80, regards the anarthrous expression die seltene Formulierung. Royse, Scribal Habits, 455-58. 120 Albin, Judasbrevet, 618. 121 Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 104; Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude, 312-14. 122 Kubo, P72 and Codex Vaticanus, 144-46; Landon, A Text-Critical Study, 124. 123