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.
95
RECONSIDERING THE TEXT
OF JUDE 5, 13, 15 AND 18
TIMO FLINK
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 ἀπαφÏίζοντα, πάνταϛ τοὺϛ ἀσεβεῖϛ, and ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν ὅτι
á¼Ï€á¾½ á¼ÏƒÏ‡Î¬Ï„ου τοῦ χÏόνου, 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 ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς, which
none of the above works have.
Introduction
The letter of Jude has recently received a renewed interest. Not only is
the message and structure of Jude being discussed1 –including the debate
For a numerous recent articles dealing with many aspects of the text of Jude and its
1
meaning, see e.g. W. Brosend, “The Letter of Jude. A Rhetoric of Excess or an Excess of
Rhetoric?â€, Interpretation 60 (2006) 292-305; T. Callan, “Use of the Letter of Jude by the
Second Letter of Peterâ€, Bib 85 (2004) 42-64; J.D. Charles, “The Angels under Reserve in 2
Peter and Judeâ€, Bulletin of Biblical Research 15 (2005) 39-48; D.J. Clark, “Discourse Struc-
ture in Judeâ€, BT 55, Technical Papers (2004) 125-37; D.W. Jones, “The Apostate Angels
of 2 Pet 2:4 and Jude 6â€, Faith and Mission 23 (2006) 19-30; S.J. Joubert, “When the Dead
are Alive! The Influence of the Living Dead in the Letter of Judeâ€, Hervormde Teologiese
Studies 58 (2002) 576-92; E. Mazich, “’The Lord Will Come with His Holy Myriads’. An
Investigation of the Linguistic Source of the Citation of 1 Enoch 1,9 in Jude 14b-15†ZNW
94 (2003) 276-81; N.C. Pittman, “The Epistolary Tradition. The Letters of James, 1-2 Peter,
1-3 John, and Judeâ€, in D.E. Smith (ed.), Chalice Introduction to the New Testament (St
Louis 2004), 254-80; L.D. Smith, “The Doxas of Jude 8â€, BT 52, Technical Papers (2001)
147-48; idem., “Unlocking the Structure of Judeâ€, BT 55, Technical Papers (2004) 138-42;
P. Spitaler, “Doubt or Dispute (Jude 9 and 22-23). Rereading a Special New Testament
Meaning through the Lense of Internal Evidenceâ€, Bib 87 (2006) 201-22; L. Thurén, “Hey
Jude! Asking for the Original Situation and Message of a Catholic Epistle†NTS 43 (1997)
451-65; D.F. Watson, “The Oral-Scribal and Cultural Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse
in Jude and 2 Peterâ€, in D.F. Watson (ed.), Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in New
Testament (Atlanta 2002) 187-213; B. Witherington, “Jude. Another Brother of Jesusâ€, BR
21 (2005) 15-16, 50. For recent commentaries, see e.g., W. Brosend, James and Jude (Cam-
bridge 2004); S.J. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter (Nashville 2002); R.P. Lightner, The Epistles of
1,2,3 John and Jude (Chattanooga 2002); T.R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Nashville 2003);
FilologÃa Neotestamentaria - Vol. XX - 2007, pp. 95-125
Facultad de FilosofÃa y Letras - Universidad de Córdoba (España)
FOLLOW US