Reconsidering the Text of Jude 5, 13, 15 and 18 125 Conclusion The conclusion of this study is that the text of Jude should read ἀπαφρίζοντα (Jude 13), πάνταϛ τοὺϛ ἀσεβεῖϛ (Jude 15), ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν ὅτι (Jude 18a), and ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τοῦ χρόνου (Jude 18b). These conclu- sions are the same as found in the work of Wasserman. I suggest that the reading ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς found in A 81 33c 2344 L:V Ä Cyr is the “original” one for Jude 5. It seems that the editors of the ECM have not given enough weight to the external evidence proposed by the CBGM method. This applies to Jude 15 and 18a and to a lesser degree to Jude 13 and 18b. Jude 5 continues to be crux interpretum. There are also important internal arguments in support of variant readings other than those chosen by the ECM editors. Wasserman appears to have a more balanced treatment of the external and internal evidence, except in Jude 5 (in my opinion). I suggest that the critical text of Jude should still be reconsidered. The solution of the ECM and of this study both support high Christology, which implies that the author of Jude was one of those, who very early on argued for a pre-existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Timo FLINK Department of Western Theology University of Joensuu Yliopistonkatu 4 80101 Joensuu (FINLAND)